My Hero, George Hall -- Check Six

There have been very, very, few military stock photographers in the US or anywhere else over the past few decades, and for good reason -- the subject matter is very difficult to cover, it's dangerous, and the relationship between media pukes like us and the military's public affairs officers has been hostile for decades. But among the tiny brotherhood of military stock photographers, George Hall was the founder of the specialty, a mentor to me and others, a brilliant photographer, and a gracious gentleman. He died several years ago and is sorely missed. George's specialty was aviation -- combat aviation at first, then civil aircraft. His images were and still are amazing -- glittering, glorious photographs of all kinds of aircraft at work and play.

I met George when we were both producing books for little Presidio Press, then a small publisher in Novato, California. He had recently written and illustrated a nice little volume on the Air Force's "Top Gun" training program at Nellis AFB in Nevada. By a very happy coincindence, the book came out at the same time the movie of the same name, starring Tom Cruise, was released. Without the movie, the book would have sold 6000 copies and have been soon forgotten, but with the movie, it sold by the truck-load and was a best-seller for Presidio.

We were walking out of Presidio's little industrial-complex office when George said, "Hans, what are you doing about selling your photos as stock photography?"

"Uh...what's stock photography?" I probably answered, never having thought of it before.

George said, "I'd do these books for free just to get access to the air bases. I make a lot more money from relicensing the photos than I do on the books." I hadn't thought of it, but he and I made around $1 from each book, and not even that until the first several thousand had been sold. We were getting $3000 for an advance at that time. As George explained to me, he could easily get $3000 for a single sale of a single photograph -- and that was back in the 1980s! I started thinking about reuse of the book photography.

George pioneered military stock photography, and he was exceptionally generous about sharing his experience and wisdom with me and with anybody else who he thought might profit from his knowledge, even if we might become competitors.

Although he was known for his marvelous images made in the cockpits of fighter aircraft in flight, George confessed to me that he really hated flying in fighters. Only people who haven't done it think it is fun -- it might be fun after you've done it for a while, but it's damn hard work, especially the first few times. The combination of violent maneuvering, heavy G-forces, cramped seating, and the danger of ejecting (accidentally or of necessity) makes photography very challenging. It was worse then, when you had to change rolls of film, before the advent of digital cameras. Most first-timers get airsick, and some throw up. If you puke in the cockpit, you are required to clean it up yourself. As George knew well, it looks like more fun than it is.

George died recently after heart surgery, to the dismay of his many admirers. He was in his middle-sixties and the death was unexpected by all who anticipated many more years of his wit and wisdom. He left a wonderful collection of photography and a large collection of fans. His bride Nicki still operates his stock photo business, Check-Six. If you are looking for spectacular images of civil or military aviation, check out Check-Six -- although I suppose we are competitors in some ways, we were friends when George was alive and I am still happy to refer clients to his marvelous work.

http://www.check-6.com/

Model-Releases and Military Personnel

An advertising client confessed to me recently that his company had finally received a letter from an attorney representing a soldier whose photo had been used in the company's ads. I'd warned this company and others that soldiers, sailors, Marines, and anybody else in the armed forces have all the rights of privacy that apply to civilians, and that includes recognizable images used in promotion.

No reputable company would use a photo of somebody in their ads unless that person signed a formal "model-release" or consent form. When such photos sometimes get used, the people in the ads often sue, and often win very large judgements for "breach of privacy."

But I've been hearing from advertising and PR clients for years that this right of privacy doesn't apply to people in government service. It's not true, as my client discovered to their dismay.

Even DoD, who provides lots of photos for "editorial" or new-related purposes, makes clear, those photos aren't supposed to be used for advertising, and the people in the photos have not provided model-releases.

The DoD photos, however, are partly responsible for the confusion; these photos normally include somewhere in the caption the word "Released." "Released" means that DoD has released the photograph to the public for use in newspapers, magazines, and similar outlets. It does NOT mean "model-released."

If you use a photograph in any kind of promotion -- print, web, outdoor, video, broadcast, trade show display -- it pays to be sure that it is covered with a model-release.

DoD Regs on Advertising Photography -- Part One

Ad agencies, public-relations firms, and anybody using photographs to promote products or services in the US should be aware of the requirements of the Department of Defense concerning advertising. These regulations are, DoD tells me, essentially laws and violating them could result in a problem with government attorneys. That doesn't seem to happen very often, though, because DoD seldom seems interested in enforcing the regs, at least at the present time.

If you're an advertiser, DoD does not permit you to suggest in any way that the US government endorses your product or service. In practical terms, that means that you are not allowed to show a photo with a person or object that are clearly part of the US armed forces. You can show an F-15 aircraft, for example, because many nations use the F-15 -- but you can't show USAF markings on the aircraft in the photo. All that's required to comply with the regs is to Photoshop out the markings. The same sort of thing applies to "bumper" markings on vehicles, branch and unit insignia on uniforms, and anything else in a photo that is unique to the US armed forces.

Another part of the regs relates to the people appearing in the photos. According to DoD, they are not supposed to be on active duty. That's not easy to establish just by looking at a photo, most of the time, but DoD prefers advertising photos use actors wearing "sterile" uniforms -- clothing without any patches or insignia at all.

But magazines and other publications are full of ads that violate these regulations. The reason seems to be that enforcement is a very low priority and that violaters will never hear from DoD's lawyers. More on that in another post.

I'll write about this again. It's a big topic and if DoD ever gets serious about enforcing the rules, a lot of advertisers will need to change the way they illustrate their ads.

A Difficult Mission -- Tactical Photography

As the only stock photo agency specializing in military and law enforcement material, we often encounter customers who wonder why it is so hard to get this sort of stock photography, and why it is only available for license as rights-managed (RM) instead of the much cheaper RF. The short answer is that it is very difficult to make these photographs, and dangerous, too.

The difficulty starts with access. Want to make photos of soldiers, Navy SEALs, Recon Marines, SWAT teams, or any of the other members of tactical or support military units? Well, you probably can't. The only people permitted to interview and photograph military personnel on military installations (or almost anywhere else) must be approved by a long and demanding process. Even if the military uses your products, you can't legally make photographs of them being used by soldiers and then use those photos in advertising. Even if you can get yourself and your camera on a base and start making photos, the MPs are going to show up and you're going to get a ride in the back of a patrol car. Sooner or later you'll be escorted to the gate and told to leave. Your camera might not go with you.

I'll explain the process of legally making photos on military installations in detail in another blog, but for now will just say that you've got to get permission from the Public Affairs shop, and to do that you've got to make a proper request and have a very good reason for asking. That reason MUST be related to an "editorial" project -- a book, a magazine article, a television program -- with a known publisher. You need to have documentation that you are a legitimate photojournalist doing a legitimage project. Even then, PAO is not likely to approve your request.

So how have I been able to make all these photographs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, British Army, Russian Air Force, and many SWAT teams? Because I have written and illustrated more than sixty books over about twenty-five years, books on Green Berets, SEALs, many kinds of aircraft, many kinds of ships, many kinds of training. The first book was on the Coast Guard, and I will write about that particular series of adventures another time. That was in 1983, but the process of getting access and making photos for that book was essentially the same as for most of the other books -- it takes a long time, a good track record, a network of friends within the subject community, a good portfolio and a good resume.

So you can't make photographs of the military unless the military approves, and they aren't going to approve without a very good reason. I'm one of a small handful of guys who have had a good reason, and I seem to have been the only one who's been producing photo books on all of the ground forces.

Once the photographs have been made for publication, the PAO shops of the various military branches approve the use of these images as stock photography. They don't get involved in any secondary use, and don't need to provide approval. And that's how I have been able to offer the thousands of photographs of the US armed forces through Military Stock Photography.

TacOps Warning Order

This is the first in a series of commentaries about the business of tactical photography operations, particularly stock photography of tactical subjects. "Tactical" here refers to both military and law enforcement operations, the risky business of the guys and gals who carry weapons and use them in the profession of conflict resolution.

I've been making tactical photographs of the US armed forces and law enforcement units since 1983, and worked with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, British Army, and Russian Air Force. Getting access to these communities is always tough, and making photos of the people in these communities is tougher.

As a result, only one stock photo agency in the world specializes in images of military personnel -- my little niche library, Military Stock Photography.

In future blogs I will describe the process of making tactical photographs and the business of providing them to clients.

Stay tuned.

Hans Halberstadt
www.militaryphoto.com