# Was this stock photo (woman in military dress uniform) involved in a brouhaha? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 20, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948 "2014-10-20T21:22:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/21 "2014-10-21T00:34:44Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > What’s obvious is that your client’s client is a moron who reads/watches/follows FOX News. They’d be an even bigger moron if they followed NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS or the New York Times. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/22 "2014-10-21T00:53:50Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > What’s obvious is that your client’s client is a moron who reads/watches/follows FOX News. Yeah, unlike [people who had only one thing to do,](http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/naval-expert-ships-shown-during-democratic-convention-tribute-to-veterans-were-russian/)in the most important, sensitive, and exposed way possible, people who are proud of never watching Fox and telling us about it, and that’s really all you have to say. And then spent even more time not watching Fox and showing us their equal commitment to the Air Force. Eta pre-mod note: it’s apropos to thread, at least without the animus. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/23 "2014-10-21T01:30:24Z")
How about we stipulate that photo mistakes like this are made by political staffs of all ideological persuasions, and have done with it? [http://www.wired.com/2008/09/john-mccain-acc/](http://www.wired.com/2008/09/john-mccain-acc/) ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/24 "2014-10-21T01:34:17Z")
Deal. But I get annoyed by “let me just flash my ‘I don’t watch Fox and so I’m smart’ credentials.” ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/25 "2014-10-21T01:53:26Z")
It’s certainly the type of dress cap I’ve seen women in the Coast Guard wear. The cap device, though, is not official. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/26 "2014-10-21T02:36:39Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > What’s obvious is that your client’s client is a moron who reads/watches/follows FOX News. > [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > They’d be an even bigger moron if they followed NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS or the New York Times. **Moderator Warnings** I’m sure both of you are well aware that political jabs are not allowed in General Questions. This is an official warning for both of you. Leave this stuff out of this forum. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/27 "2014-10-21T03:56:19Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Yeah, unlike [people who had only one thing to do,](http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/naval-expert-ships-shown-during-democratic-convention-tribute-to-veterans-were-russian/)in the most important, sensitive, and exposed way possible, people who are proud of never watching Fox and telling us about it, and that’s really all you have to say. > > And then spent even more time not watching Fox and showing us their equal commitment to the Air Force. > > Eta pre-mod note: it’s apropos to thread, at least without the animus. > [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Deal. But I get annoyed by “let me just flash my ‘I don’t watch Fox and so I’m smart’ credentials.” **Moderator Note** **Leo Bloom** , when you know a post is going to be moderated, there’s no need for you to comment on it as well. That just contributes further to any derailment. Don’t do this again. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/28 "2014-10-21T04:48:56Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Wow-- great sleuthing, everyone. Special thanks to **Bayard** and **crowmanyclouds** for their finds. > > I am willing to bet that the story in crow’s link is the one my client’s client was (mistakenly) thinking of. > > I also contacted Tim Bieber (the photographer) to ask if it was a real uniform or a prop one, and he and his team got back to me very promptly. He said: > > Which makes sense (the fact—or at least belief among photographers and filmmakers; I haven’t checked it out myself—that it’s illegal to use real military uniforms for advertising purposes). > > Many thanks! This is what I came in to say. She is an Act-or and the uniform is a costume. Not only is it not legal to use the real uniform in an ad, it’s not legal to wear the uniform if not in the active service. And since it’s also illegal for active military to be in an ad not sanctioned by the government, you would never have a stock photo of the real thing to use in an ad. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/29 "2014-10-21T05:03:53Z")
> [@picunurse](#): > > Not only is it not legal to use the real uniform in an ad, it’s not legal to wear the uniform if not in the active service. Are you sure? There are certainly many actors who portray members of the armed forces in movies and television series and perform in what appear to be real uniforms. And these actors appear in uniform in ads for these movies and television series. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/30 "2014-10-21T05:24:47Z")
I have a related question. Military uniforms in movies and on TV usually have some kind of deliberately incorrect detail. My guess is that actual military personnel and uniforms can’t be used for stock photographs. What’s the actual policy? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/31 "2014-10-21T05:26:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you sure? There are certainly many actors who portray members of the armed forces in movies and television series and perform in what appear to be real uniforms. And these actors appear in uniform in ads for these movies and television series. From [here:](http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/uniformwear.htm) 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Sections 771 and 772. > [@](#): > > Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear - > > (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or > > (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps BUT: > [@](#): > > (f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force. This would presumably not extend to actors in commercials, except for those depicting the actors actually playing their roles. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/32 "2014-10-21T18:53:07Z")
That seems clearly unconstitutional, don’t we think? How can the government, given the First Amendment, prohibit accurate uniforms in a work of fiction, even if it reflects negatively on the services? I can see prohibiting them to non-service members IRL because they could be used to deceive, but not in a movie or TV show. Advertisements are different because then there’s an implication that the relevant service endorses the product. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/33 "2014-10-21T19:06:24Z")
I can think of many actors who would be in jail if that law was actually enforced. Jack Nicholson, Tom Berenger, Timothy Hutton, James Cromwell, - the list goes on and on. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/34 "2014-10-21T22:13:27Z")
Not to mention that a bunch of movies have an interesting little bit in the credits: “We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the US (insert branch of service here).” About the “prohibiting to non-service members IRL”: Hasn’t that already been decided against? ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/35 "2014-10-22T05:54:01Z")
That looks like a US Military uniform, but, that’s about it. She has a khaki shirt on, the right cover, and a name tag that looks like one. And, that’s about it. It’s close enough to pull it off but it’s simply not a current US DoD uniform for any service. Probably to alleviate any legal implications from the DoD and to make the image for sale ASAP and too as many customers as possible. Say you had a photo on Getty with someone in a “real” uniform. Sure, the first customer might have a great ad or use for the image. But, several years down the road when Getty is just making a sale, that image could be used for a negative reason. Hence, why you see an image that will invoke the memory response of US military and that’s about it. When I was in the Navy, I had seen soda machines with a backlit poster with people in “uniforms”. But, none of them was 100%. Patches on wrong side, etc. We would pick them apart while on lunch. Also, is it legal to buy and sell authentic DoD uniforms to non-DoD personnel? I could be wrong as it has been several years, but, I remember terrorists buying used (but still current) uniform items off of eBay and then infiltrating a checkpoint and blowing everyone up. So, if you wanted to use the real deal, I think it would involve either convincing active duty to pose for you (isn’t there something against this?) or getting permission and help from the branch you wish to portray? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Milton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mr.Milton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Milton)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/36 "2014-10-22T12:55:02Z")
It’s a modified version of a US Navy Women’s Officer uniform. It appears the legs of the eagle have been removed or else removed by photoshopping. The US military --or any other part of the US government-- can’t endorse or give the appearance of endorsing specific commercial products. At times, the government purchases and uses specific brand name products, but just as easily could use another at some other point in time. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/37 "2014-10-22T15:57:03Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Not the same photo but I’m pretty sure [this](http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/04/dem-lawmaker-uses-german-luftwaffe-uniform-to-portray-u-s-navy-in-campaign-mailer/) is what the client was referring to. > > CMC fnord! That is not Nazi. It is an insignia used by the current Bundeswehr Luftwaffe. > [@toadspittle](#): > > Wow-- great sleuthing, everyone. Special thanks to **Bayard** and **crowmanyclouds** for their finds. > > I am willing to bet that the story in crow’s link is the one my client’s client was (mistakenly) thinking of. > > I also contacted Tim Bieber (the photographer) to ask if it was a real uniform or a prop one, and he and his team got back to me very promptly. He said: > > Which makes sense (the fact—or at least belief among photographers and filmmakers; I haven’t checked it out myself—that it’s illegal to use real military uniforms for advertising purposes). > > Many thanks! No it is not illegal. But it is a pervasive rumor. One that I have to school vets on constantly. > [@Colibri](#): > > From [here:](http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/uniformwear.htm) > > 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Sections 771 and 772. > > BUT: > > This would presumably not extend to actors in commercials, except for those depicting the actors actually playing their roles. Yes it would. Possibly not before 1970. The appropriate case would be Schact v. United States. In it Schact was charged under this statute for using a uniform in an anti-war skit. He was charged because it discredited the military. That part of the law was struck down because it violated the 1st amendment. Since then there has not been any prosecution for actors wearing the uniform and the theatrical exemption has been interpreted very liberally. Both in regards to who could be considered an actor and what is considered a theatrical production. So there is no law against an actor wearing an authentic uniform. However civilly the military would take umbrage if you made something purporting to give their endorsement. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948/38 "2014-10-22T16:01:33Z")
> [@electronbee](#): > > Also, is it legal to buy and sell authentic DoD uniforms to non-DoD personnel? I could be wrong as it has been several years, but, I remember terrorists buying used (but still current) uniform items off of eBay and then infiltrating a checkpoint and blowing everyone up. So, if you wanted to use the real deal, I think it would involve either convincing active duty to pose for you (isn’t there something against this?) or getting permission and help from the branch you wish to portray? Sure it is. I buy my uniforms mail order all the time. Through reputable companies. No ID is asked for or needed. Marlow White probably has the best quality but they are expensive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-this-stock-photo-woman-in-military-dress-uniform-involved-in-a-brouhaha/701948.md?page=1)