Coming out of halftime of the Texas A&M-Miss St game, ESPN interspersed clips of A&M's Johnny Manziel with scenes from the new James Bond movie, which ended with the placard for the "Skyfall" movie that comes out this week.  I thought it was against NCAA rules to use images of college players for commercial purposes, even if the player doesn't get paid.  What's the rule here?

THIS WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION.  THE ATHLETE WAS NOT INVOLVED AS A DIRECT PARTICIPANT.  THIS IS LIKE RSPN ADVERTISING UPCOMING GAMES USING PAST GAME VIDEO TO PROMOTE UPCOMING GAME. tHIS DONE WITH THE PEERMISSION OF THE NCAA

I think Panda is right, but I don't believe that legally they have to get permission from the NCAA.  They might do that as a matter of courtesy.  I think that ESPN and any other network or station that does a sportscast owns the video that they take of the event.  Is that not correct?  Isn't it just like the recordings of news events that are covered by broadcast journalists?  Ohio University, for instance, has no control over the recordings various news organizations made of President Obama's recent visit to campus.  I don't see why the ownership of game video should be any different.  Am I missing something here? 

Edit: OK, I reread the initial post and I see the issue is commercial use, rather than ESPN promos.  That does change things in terms of the general law regulating commercial communication versus non-commercial speech, the former of which can be more regulated.  I'd rather cast the debate in these terms rather than assuming the NCAA has some inherent right to extend its control over the use, per se, of game videos.  It's the misuse of the players commercial rights (albeit restricted the the NCAA) that's really the crux of the issue to me.