I great example of that would be the US NAVY Blue Angels. Millions of images of them are shot each year, both of the pilots and the A/C. The photographers may use those images with impunity, to make calanders, coffe mugs, jackets etc. No release is required. They were going to try and copyright their logos but the congress, and the Courts all said that it would not be legal unless major changes were to be made within US Law. Many of us A/C shooters were scared because it would mean that thousands of images of stock would be rendered useless with out proper releaes and clearances.
Also companies like the military channel would be unable to use military / civilian contracted images of troops without getting releases from eveyone in the group shot. We cannot go back in time and get releases of a SEAL team photo...
Les, I'm giving you a nice pass because apparently you haven't been under orders and don't seem to know how they work.
A soldier follows only "lawful" orders. A lawful order is one that does not require the solder to disobey an order from a higher command or break the law.
There are already standing orders from every service chief of staff in the Pentagon forbidding servicemembers from appearing in commercial advertisements while in official uniform. The soldier is not going to get that order from anyone but the chief of staff at the Pentagon. Period.
There are also standing orders from every service chief of staff that specifically define what "uniform" means. Basically, every service has "distinctive accouterments" that define uniform. Usually it is the official heraldic seal of the service which is on certain badges and buttons.
If a person appears in an advertisement without those "distinctive accouterments," he's not in "official" uniform. When I was stationed at Pearl Harbor, I had subordinate troops get bit roles in as service members in television and movies shot there. Although they played "themselves," in no case did they actually wear a complete uniform.
Now, I gave you the three circumstances in which you might think you've seen service members appear in commercial products or advertisements in uniform:
A. When they're actually civilian models or actors--the military has no control over that.
B. When it's not an "official" uniform because it lacks the "distinctive accouterments," and
C. When expressly permitted by the chief of staff because the association brings credit to the service. The Blue Angels is one of those circumstances in which the Chief of Naval Operations has clearly given such permission because, after all, it's a Navy public display group. The old science fiction television series "Stargate SG-1" had all kinds of Air Force support--so much that even a sitting Air Force Chief of Staff himself had a walk-on role in the last season...and gave himself permission to be in official uniform. You can't use either as an example of a general permission for any service member to play fashion model for a day.
That's editorial use, not commercial. They don't need releases anyway.
This is also not true. States require only "permission" to make commercial use of a model's image. Some states don't even require it to be written. This permission need not be a contract and it need not follow the provision of contract enforceability (such as quid pro quo). See this:
http://www.pixiq.com …hat-mislead-photographers
