[HN Gopher] It may just be a game to you, but it means the world...
___________________________________________________________________
It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
Author : Tomte
Score : 115 points
Date : 2021-07-09 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.redcross.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.redcross.ca)
| rurounijones wrote:
| Is anyone aware of some event that kicked off this posting? Has a
| particular game misused the symbol badly?
|
| It all makes sense but I am not sure if it has been submitted in
| response to some recent egregious misuse.
| forkLding wrote:
| Might not be a game but be from this:
| https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0005.h...
| and then seeing the widespread usage of red cross symbolism in
| video games
| w-ll wrote:
| Im trying to find something as well, closet I've found is
| https://www.redcross.org/local/puerto-rico.html appears to be
| Fortnight tournament to raise funds for Puerto Rico?
| Tomte wrote:
| Many first person shooters and their health power-ups.
|
| Also, my googling found this:
| https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/17/indie-games-develope...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| I can't see how that detracts from the symbol - if anything,
| it makes it clearer what it represents. If there was a game
| with Nazis carrying red crosses instead of swastikas or
| something, this post might make sense, but it just seems
| unreasonable to me.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The point is to strictly maintain the symbol as indicating
| members of the internationally neutral Red Cross and Red
| Crescent, not just "healing". If a war happens and a bunch
| of people on either side are using the red cross symbol to
| indicate medics, then members of the actual Red Cross are
| at risk of being accidentally targeted along with them.
| dawnerd wrote:
| If someone is going to target medics I'm pretty sure
| their morals are gone to the point where they don't care
| if it's Red Cross or not.
| Tomte wrote:
| > If a war happens and a bunch of people on either side
| are using the red cross symbol to indicate medics
|
| They do, medical branches of the military are allowed to
| use the symbols.
| mcguire wrote:
| Right. And you're not supposed to shoot at them.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Especially given that first aid kits are often marked in
| similar ways.
| malfist wrote:
| Not recent, but I believe subnatica had their submission to
| Japan rejected due to use a red cross on their med kits.
| 81451710235 wrote:
| They do this fairly often. archive.is dates this page to at
| least 2018
| pugworthy wrote:
| This is not a new issue for them. I recall dealing with it when
| I was working on a WW2 combat game 15 years ago.
| ksaj wrote:
| I wondered exactly this, because to this day I've only ever
| seen the red cross used for its intended meaning. It is
| absolutely recognizable for this purpose, and in those use
| cases. There were cases of misuse, but they were some time ago
| and already have been dealt with.
|
| I used to have a toy ambulance that had the red cross logo on
| it. They probably should post a policy on what they consider to
| be acceptable play, and what is not. This would also impact a
| lot of movies and cartoons.
| pugworthy wrote:
| I think if used for intended meaning in a shooting game, any
| player wearing or showing the Red Cross would be a third team
| who's role is to heal everyone.
|
| Which would actually be an interesting game idea...
| mcguire wrote:
| No idea if this is related to the post, but someone pointed
| out...
|
| https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Medic
| forkLding wrote:
| This might be also a part of all this, where Johnson & Johnson
| fought in court with the American Red Cross over the Red Cross
| emblem on American Red Cross products:
| https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0005.h...
|
| https://www.jnj.com/our-company/youre-doing-what
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnsonandjohnson-redcros...
| [deleted]
| Sr_developer wrote:
| It is not surprising that such absurd request comes from the
| local branch of a highly litigious capitalist country. I could
| not imagine seeing the Serbian Red Cross (change the country at
| your taste) stating such a ridiculous thing. This is like
| forbidding games to use the SOS distress signal, or the UN logo.
|
| The red cross sign in games/toys/films is a GOOD thing, it
| creates awareness.
| m1117 wrote:
| Games is the mirror of the real world. Also, games are art. You
| can't judge GTA for bringing people joy of killing virtual
| people.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| You can certainly judge GTA for that.
| psyc wrote:
| I do judge GTA. I judge it to be the greatest AAA series of
| all time.
| mrmuagi wrote:
| Blame it all you want, there's something to be said when the
| human brain can extract joy from virtual people getting the
| rough end of it. It's almost like blame shifting the origin
| of the internal emotions to external pixels makes the vision
| humans are something other than just evolutionary maladjusted
| techno-primates and of godly origin and that-thar-pixels is
| the work of satan and couldn't be otherwise.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| What does this accomplish?
| jamestimmins wrote:
| IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they
| risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use
| and which they have no control over. If that happens then it
| completely undermines its purpose and significance in disaster
| or humanitarian situations.
| schoen wrote:
| It's not the same legally as an ordinary trademark, so I
| don't think that's their exact motivation. I think the idea
| is that they want everyone to know about believe that the
| emblem is only used for Red Cross activities and therefore
| that it's bad, and even a war crime, to attack those
| displaying it in a conflict environment. If people have seen
| it coming up in other contexts, that intuition or association
| might be weakened.
| afiori wrote:
| increasing awareness of the problem
| kleene_op wrote:
| This seems like a very petty problem to focus on in "an
| increasingly uncertain world". I think establishing a link
| between people making/playing video games and people who
| actually abuse the red cross symbol causing actual casualties
| is just plain counterproductive. Until they back that
| connection with actual data, I stand unmoved by their
| statement.
| greatgib wrote:
| There are down votes to comments suggesting that it is "pure rent
| seeking".
|
| And I see why, people think that there is no obvious financial
| interest for them.
|
| But think again deeper about that, they are often selling their
| own brand. For example, in a lot of places, they are asking
| donations exchanging them with red cross stickers that they put
| on cars.
|
| For some people it is a status symbol to have this sticker on
| their cars as it is a signal that "they are generous".
|
| And, as said otherwise, the red cross recent history is plagued
| with waste of money and very bad management.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the
| red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past
| ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red
| Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians.
|
| I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the
| article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be
| vaguely insinuating that video games appropriating the red cross
| logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim
| but I can't figure out what else they might mean.
|
| EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is
| impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing.
| I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> They seem to be vaguely insinuating ...
|
| What we say doesn't matter. What the _Red Cross_ says doesn 't
| matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's
| the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the
| Red Cross and _any_ use by anyone else is completely subject to
| their permission.
|
| This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose
| lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded
| soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may
| one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol
| on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of
| the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that
| should be up for constitutional debate.
| hourislate wrote:
| Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking
| apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross
| Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's
| symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality
| and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Trying putting the whole article in context instead of
| picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the
| Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's
| losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and
| impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict
| zones.
|
| Wow that's a lot of snark.
|
| 1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't _quote_ it
| all because that 's not what quotes are for. Note that the
| site guidelines advise against accusations of not reading
| TFA.
|
| 2. "as such are becoming a target in conflict zones." So
| basically the absurd "videogames thus killings" argument that
| I addressed in my original post?
|
| 3. I got a couple dozen upvotes in a few minutes, so I'm not
| the only one confused by this.
| bingidingi wrote:
| The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion,
| and that confusion can cause death.
|
| "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith
| oversimplification of the point they're trying to make.
| It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly
| attributed as _creating_ violence... but that 's not what
| they're saying.
|
| They don't want video games to stop representing medics,
| for example... they just don't want the red cross to be
| synonymous with health, because it's _much_ more specific
| than that.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > The argument is that diluting the mark can cause
| confusion, and that confusion can cause death.
| "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith
| oversimplification.
|
| I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular,
| "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument
| than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which
| can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being
| charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA
| means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a
| better likely meaning".
|
| But apparently there are a lot of people who think the
| "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not
| mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support
| their position with examples.
| bingidingi wrote:
| If I start putting the toilet symbol on doors without
| toilets behind them, eventually you're going to stop
| expecting toilets behind the door. You don't need an
| example to know that.
|
| This also isn't about trademark, the red cross is
| outlined in the Geneva Conventions as a symbol with a
| specific meaning. That meaning is specific because it's
| meant to protect aid workers as neutral parties in
| conflict.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > If I start putting the toilet symbol on doors without
| toilets behind them, eventually you're going to stop
| expecting toilets behind the door. You don't need an
| example to know that.
|
| Good grief. Can you think of a reason why your analogy
| about changing how a symbol is used _in real life_ might
| not apply to a debate about how symbols are used _in
| fiction_?
|
| Let me offer up an analogy that _isn 't_ completely and
| obviously broken:
|
| If you watch enough Doctor Who, does it make you believe
| that real life police boxes are actually camouflaged time
| machines?
| bingidingi wrote:
| It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If _every_ police box
| in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason
| someone may be confused when encountering a real police
| box for the first time.
|
| The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games,
| is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried
| about confusion.
|
| There's additional issue with the fact that video games
| are very common, but warzones and disaster areas less so.
| So it's quite possible the fictional association, if
| overused, could redefine the real-life usage for many
| people. We already see some of this in the comment
| section... many people don't understand the difference
| between "health" as a concept and the red cross as an
| element protected by international law.
|
| It seems reasonable to try and claw that meaning back.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box
| in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason
| someone may be confused when encountering a real police
| box for the first time.
|
| This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every
| fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole
| thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic
| about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that
| I kind of expect ridiculous moral panics from
| conservative parents not so much from the official
| communications arm of one of the largest NGOs in the
| world. Absent any actual evidence I think we're just
| going to have to agree to disagree.
| bingidingi wrote:
| Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't
| seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying
| is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's
| important to us that it's not diluted."
|
| They're not calling for video games to be banned or even
| re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross
| from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an
| international treaty intended to protect aid workers)...
| it seems like the method of applying this mostly consists
| of asking nicely.
| [deleted]
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting the RC are engaging in
| moral panic, but that their reasoning (the absurd
| proposed causal relationship and complete and utter lack
| of evidence) resembles a particular phenomenon which
| happened to be a moral panic.
| mcguire wrote:
| The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and new Red Crystal are specific
| logos (like all trademarked logos), with the additional aspect
| that they are recognized in international laws, including the
| Geneva Conventions. Vehicles, for example, carrying the Red
| Cross logos are not supposed to be fired upon
| (https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066), and no other vehicles are
| supposed to display the Red Cross logos.
|
| If you use the IBM logo or the ATT death star in an
| unauthorized fashion, you get a nastygram from IBM or ATT
| because you are diluting their brand. Diluting the brand of the
| Red Cross means that there is an increased likelihood of
| "mistakes", and a mistake in a combat zone is a bad thing.
| bingidingi wrote:
| It's not an insinuation of anything, they're trying to
| emphasize the gravity of what they do to discourage casual use
| of the symbol. Their intention is in the headline.
| chomp wrote:
| I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are
| claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes
| its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they
| intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially
| used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to
| violence.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Putting those two sentences together is how you insuate such
| a thing.
|
| EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public
| perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of
| the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're
| the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example.
| Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are
| going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful
| people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red
| Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been
| involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that
| it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not
| unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very
| high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| The bell ringing Santa Claus is the Salvation Army, unless
| they both do it.
| trollman5000 wrote:
| Good.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone
|
| But didn't that ship sail a century ago?
|
| Since exactly everything related to medical
| services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical
| world, isn't it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is
| the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper
| use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn't be used more
| than that since that's the rule in the real world? That at
| least makes some sense.
|
| I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and
| while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva
| convention I wasn't actually aware that it was the exclusive
| right of military medical staff. Every single
| gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it
| sure feels like the generic "medical whatever" symbol.
| pmyteh wrote:
| That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross
| use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but
| everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to
| have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits,
| blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green
| crosses at pharmacies...
|
| Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be
| possible.
| theodric wrote:
| Their logo is just the flag of Evil Switzerland, anyway
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| This is an extraordinary naive comment.
|
| _Claim_ is stronger than _insinuate_.
|
| claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue
| of a right; demand as a right or as due
|
| insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly
|
| Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually
| read what they write, or listen to what they say.
| MattRix wrote:
| Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused
| them of not reading what they wrote.
| SamBam wrote:
| [Claiming/insinuating] that using the Red Cross as a
| generic logo dilutes its symbolism, which _could
| potentially_ lead to deaths is clearly a weaker statement
| than [claiming /insinuating] that its use in video games
| _has caused specific_ deaths.
|
| It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the
| first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible,
| statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete
| incident.
|
| No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross
| in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths.
| Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the
| logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique
| neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of
| recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.
| surfsvammel wrote:
| Speculating here.
|
| In conflict zones, the red cross symbol has often protected
| them from being a target. It might have been one of the primary
| meanings and uses of the symbol. Could they mean, with those
| two sentences, that having the red cross be used, in for
| example, video games, for other meanings (like health pack or
| whatever) waters down that original important meaning of the
| symbol as the Red Cross organisation identity?
|
| I'm just speculating, but could it be that a combatant in war
| seeing a red cross previously though "that's the Red Cross"
| while they today might, more often than before, just think:
| "that's medics"?
| anoncake wrote:
| Has the world ever not been "increasingly uncertain"?
| thebooktocome wrote:
| Some people seem to look back on the period of time between
| the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 as a relatively stable
| period in "the West".
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern
| times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to
| natural disasters. But it seems they feel they're increasingly
| responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That's
| at least my interpretation.
|
| (Edited to clarify timeframe)
| sithadmin wrote:
| This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of
| the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond
| to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-
| level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some
| time. Disaster relief and public health came along much
| later.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other
| first responders are public servants--as I do--then you
| should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They
| are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to
| other first responders). Easily the best organization I
| have ever known or worked for.
| gmueckl wrote:
| Hiatorically, the Red Cross was foundes in response to the
| suffering caused by the Crimean War in the 1860s and their
| mission is to help people who get caught in armed comflicts.
| The symbol is protected by international law as a sign of
| medical facilities and medical personal who may not be
| attacked. Using the red cross for any other purspose is
| considered abusive and is formally a war crime. It may sound
| absurd, but keeping the narrow and important meaning of the
| symbol intact saves lives.
| dfdz wrote:
| I think this quotation best summarizes the article
|
| "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry
| being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending
| the unauthorized use"
|
| The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Right, but they could make that point without invoking the
| deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of
| persuasion about why it's important to respect their
| trademark.
| blooalien wrote:
| Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as
| evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their
| reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary,
| as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their
| reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
|
| Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really
| "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to
| these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a
| pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are
| to persuade someone.
| aeternum wrote:
| There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A
| cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's
| ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it
| in a certain color.
|
| I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will
| reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they
| continue this foolhardy errand.
| unanswered wrote:
| Donating to the red cross is downright evil already. This
| is the same organization which, in the US at least, will
| not take blood from gay cis men who sleep with men, even
| though it's happy to take blood from straight trans women
| who sleep with men -- biologically identical acts, with the
| only difference being sexual orientation.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| > There needs to be some minimum complexity for a
| trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols.
|
| The Red Cross symbol is sui generis, it is not a (normal)
| trademark.
|
| Use of the symbols in peace time is prohibited under
| Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (except as
| allowed under that article).
|
| >It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use
| of it in a certain color.
|
| It's protected because it protects medics, the wounded and
| other vulnerable non-combatants in war. It's a vital
| humanitarian tool.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is
| important for your first reaction being "that is not where the
| enemy is" vs firing at it.
|
| This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones
| to save people.
|
| If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment
| that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and
| maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross
| symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and
| throw a grenade that way.
|
| If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone
| regardless of the side they came in with.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Is there even a single documented case where this has
| happened?
| pugworthy wrote:
| I believe that's somewhat the point of the second sentence
| quoted earlier. They are saying they've got people dying
| while serving with the Red Cross - and perhaps an
| implication is that dilution of the symbol is one cause.
|
| Irrespective they are asking to be taken seriously - it's
| not Kleenex(tm) asking to not to use kleenex generically.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't have a problem with people protecting their
| trademarks, whether Kleenex or RC. I just didn't think
| they were going to make the "trademark violations kill"
| argument. Kind of puts the MPAA's "You wouldn't steal a
| car..." marketing into perspective.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed?
| Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike
|
| https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-
| cross-...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/
| trollman5000 wrote:
| We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One
| of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done
| before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
| Vaslo wrote:
| So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo
| air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether)
| video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes
| who tried to bomb them.
| MattRix wrote:
| The claim is not only about video games. And it makes
| more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand,
| rather than only reacting once an issue arises.
|
| Also how would you even prove such a connection? What
| combatant is ever going to say "I'm sorry, I shot you
| because I thought you were the enemy's medic and not the
| red cross due to decades of brand dilution".
| addicted wrote:
| Except they aren't claiming that it's only video games.
|
| They've only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games
| or any other kind of media have contributed to any of
| these fatalities?
| jagrsw wrote:
| I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being
| ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health
| threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high
| voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.)
| undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which
| are contributing to confusion about those signs should
| share some part of the blame, instinctively
| proportionally to their public influence. I think I can
| live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far.
|
| It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this
| symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or
| property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators
| cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper
| education, maybe missing classes during military
| training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games,
| maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those
| explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do
| at least something about each of those (if possible).
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Not seeing where videogames caused these...
| MattRix wrote:
| Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an
| issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove
| such a thing?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an
| issue
|
| I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of
| their trademark contributed to the deaths that they
| cited".
|
| > And how would you ever prove such a thing?
|
| Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship
| between trademark appropriation and violence against
| personnel they have some reason to suspect that the
| causal relationship exists.
| mcguire wrote:
| The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are
| specifically mentioned in international law, including
| the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel
| displaying the logos is, unless they do some very
| specific bad things, a war crime.
|
| There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and
| in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or
| killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any
| of them involve "appropriation of their trademark
| contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe
| that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was
| made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have
| good reason to defend those logos.
|
| International Humanitarian Law (https://ihl-
| databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home):
|
| " _Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to
| medical duties must be respected and protected in all
| circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit,
| outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the
| enemy._ "
|
| " _Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical
| purposes must be respected and protected in all
| circumstances. They lose their protection if they are
| being used, outside their humanitarian function, to
| commit acts harmful to the enemy._ "
|
| " _Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to
| medical transportation must be respected and protected in
| all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are
| being used, outside their humanitarian function, to
| commit acts harmful to the enemy._ "
|
| " _Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems
| of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited._ "
|
| (The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't dispute that the RC logo is special per
| international law; I don't see what that has to do with
| anything here. I also don't object to "the Red Cross
| wants to protect its trademark"; I only object to the
| implication that appropriation of the RC logo in the
| media poses any kind of threat to RC personnel.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Right. There are several less well known protective
| marks, all red symbols on a white background. There's a
| red crescent, and a red crystal (an uncontroversial
| geometric shape which conveniently is also hollow so you
| can put some other symbol in there if that's important to
| you) and historically a red lion with sun.
|
| The purpose of these symbols is to unambiguously identify
| protected vehicles, protected buildings, protected
| people.
|
| It's true that in some countries people slap red crosses
| (in particular) on stuff that shouldn't have them and
| doesn't need them. But that doesn't make it a good idea.
| In a video game in particular you could use any symbol
| and players would soon get the idea. How long do you
| think it takes Mario players to realise that one of the
| mushrooms makes Mario bigger, while a different one is an
| extra life?
| jhgb wrote:
| > Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos
| is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war
| crime.
|
| Well, that settles it. Any games depicting red crosses
| should be patched to check if the player is shooting at
| vehicles or people marked with a red cross in the game,
| and if so, report him to the nearest police unit for an
| arrest.
| aeturnum wrote:
| They are not proposing a 1:1 relationship between use in
| games and medics being killed. That's not really how the
| meaning of symbols change. They are saying that using the
| medical symbol for game or media elements who are
| appropriate targets dilutes the clarity of the symbol. I
| think the argument is pretty straightforward and I'm not
| sure how one would "document" a symbolic dilution beyond
| suggesting that it will happen.
|
| Also, if you are asking for examples in media, they are
| extremely easy to find. Here's an example from a comic
| strip commenting on TF2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/
| 217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x100...
| thrower123 wrote:
| This only works with people who follow your rules of warfare.
|
| Otherwise, the red cross symbol just becomes a huge target
| painted on you.
| crooked-v wrote:
| People do in fact generally (but not always) respect the
| neutrality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations,
| including in current conflicts between the Taliban and the
| government of Afghanistan, where they've had access to
| prisoners from both sides and run landmine injury
| rehabilitation centers.
| mcguire wrote:
| This is true. But not following the rules of war,
| particularly if you are the weaker side, is not a good
| idea.
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| And the military must receive training for it. If a soldier
| "throws a grenade" at a red cross, it's lack of training, not
| video games.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid
| that, it's a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public
| domain than something more distinctive.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| If they do that and all the ambulances, hospitals etc.
| change to the new symbol, that symbol will have the same
| problem in a few decades because it will be similarly
| omnipresent. Considering it'll probably take about as long
| for all the equipment and buildings to relabel, it doesn't
| seem like a practical solution.
| lvs wrote:
| Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical
| units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to
| target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic.
| Both are war crimes.
| pvaldes wrote:
| And the law will fall on offenders with the force of ten
| eider feather pillows
| scarby2 wrote:
| > If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical
| equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the
| meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the
| red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's
| medics" and throw a grenade that way.
|
| The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main
| allowed uses.
|
| The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video
| games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are
| designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only
| to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their
| patients and under no circumstances are they to directly
| engage in offensive military operations.
|
| It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no
| longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively
|
| Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance
| or shooting a medic.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an
| ambulance or shooting a medic._
|
| They've gone back and forth depending on their perception
| of how well the ICRC is doing its job:
|
| * Withdrawal: https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-
| withdraws-icrc-s...
|
| * Restoration:
| http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx
|
| * https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-
| ban-o...
| trollman5000 wrote:
| Sounds like you could just use the Red Cross symbol to lure
| unsuspecting victims to your location.
| w0de0 wrote:
| "[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] ... there
| have been 162 fatalities. [Therefore the value of the Red Cross
| symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed.]"
|
| ...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| You're just restating the problem. I don't understand how
| "Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be
| protected as it is desperately needed" follows from "[As an
| example of an increasingly unstable world,] ... there have
| been 162 fatalities."
| thiagoharry wrote:
| No, I don't see they claiming that the use in games caused
| these deaths. What I think they are claiming is that it is
| necessary to protect the symbol such that when we see it, we
| know that we really are dealing with the Red Cross, not with
| some other random thing related to medicine. And that if the
| symbol becames banalized, this takes away the protection that
| the symbol should bring to them.
|
| I understand this, but, perhaps in the long term they should
| consider using a more complex symbol, and including the Red
| Cross name in it. It is much more difficult to protect a symbol
| when it is so generic and simple to draw it.
| kerng wrote:
| What the post fails to highlight is what causes problems or why
| is it an issue?
|
| E.g. it sounds like people died because of it? Why?
|
| I'm not sure I follow - isnt it a good thing that the emblem is
| widely recognized and used, so everyone know what it stands for
| help/medicine/first aid/dont shoot, etc...
|
| Or does it mean soemthing else?
| bingidingi wrote:
| The green cross is generally the recommended alternative.
|
| Note that this isn't normal copyright, the red cross is protected
| under the Geneva Conventions
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...
| xvedejas wrote:
| A green cross definitely means marijuana dispensary to my eyes.
| Is it actually used elsewhere?
| yongjik wrote:
| There's a pharmaceutical company in Korea that's literally
| called "Green Cross". (Looks like they recently changed their
| logo to... a rainbow cross! While keeping the name. Not sure
| why they thought it would be a good idea...)
| jfengel wrote:
| I would assume that was for Pride Month (June). Many
| companies adopt a rainbow flag representing LGBTQ for that
| month. If so, they've probably gone back to the old one by
| now.
| yongjik wrote:
| Err, I think they did permanently change the logo: https:
| //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Cross_(South_Korean_comp...
|
| Okay, it's not exactly a full rainbow, but it has red-
| orange-yellow-green, which is close enough ...
| schoen wrote:
| In Europe, it's sometimes used to identify an ordinary
| pharmacy.
| jetrink wrote:
| It is ubiquitous in Italy. Maybe blue would be better in the
| US, if it can be made different enough from the insurance
| company logo.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I always thought green cross means pharmacy.
|
| But I also spent a lot of my youth in France, where it means
| exactly that.
| clydethefrog wrote:
| I am still waiting for a hackernewsque article explaining
| why French pharmarcy have the blinking green crosses
| showing the time and temperature and often a whole
| complicated LED show.
| pvaldes wrote:
| And pharmacy in Spain also.
|
| The red cross had issues in the past with the symbols.
| Muslims didn't wanted to be treated for them (seeing the
| cross as a symbol for christians), so they needed to create
| the 'Red crescent' symbol exclusively for Muslims. But then
| jews, hindi and asians felt excluded also, so a third
| symbol was necessary, the red crystal, that aim to
| represent humanitary work without being assimilated to one
| of the bands in conflict. The red crystal is used in
| delicate cases to not upset anybody.
|
| The red cross should be named now the red crystal, to hide
| that it was created in an European context, by a christian,
| and also that is just the Switzerland flag with inverted
| colors (he was from Geneva).
|
| Is a good example of how politics and ideology can spoil
| anything.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Pharmacy in Australia
| bingidingi wrote:
| Yes, it's used in many places. It's very commonly used to
| indicate pharmacies throughout Europe. I've also seen it used
| in the US on various medical supplies and defibrillator
| stations.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| I've seen green crosses used to signify healing in video
| games enough times that I wouldn't question it.
| xtracto wrote:
| In Mexico there are a group of public state owned hospitals
| with the "green cross". It is the place where they take you
| when you get in an accident and don't have anywhere else to
| go. There's also the red cross, but that's the same as the
| one in the article.
| mushufasa wrote:
| If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate
| scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that
| be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness
| and education.
|
| A green cross would confuse people.
| bingidingi wrote:
| A green cross would confuse no one. It's already used all
| over the world. You've probably seen it and the color hasn't
| even crossed your mind.
| threatofrain wrote:
| It's already associated with weed and pharmacies. The
| trademark is also already registered in some major
| countries.
|
| Where do you get this confidence that there's no confusion
| with the green cross?
| bingidingi wrote:
| >Where do you get this confidence that there's no
| confusion with the green cross?
|
| The continents of Europe, Africa, Australia... I've also
| seen it used in China but I'm not as familiar with Asia
| because I haven't lived there.
|
| I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're
| likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
| pugworthy wrote:
| > I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then
| you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
|
| That is uncalled for.
| bingidingi wrote:
| It's objectively true. The US ignores many widely
| accepted international standards, and in multiple cases
| stands alone in doing so. It's not the defacto world view
| and shouldn't be treated as such.
| threatofrain wrote:
| People have already replied to you to let you know that
| various major European countries use the green cross to
| refer to a generic pharmacy.
|
| You already acknowledge this elsewhere, and you've also
| already acknowledged that there's special meaning to the
| red cross as opposed to merely referring to pharmacies.
|
| I don't know what you're doing excluding Asia or the USA
| either, while saying
|
| > A green cross would confuse no one.
|
| And then following up with
|
| > I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then
| you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
| bingidingi wrote:
| Using the green cross for a pharmacy supports the
| suggested use as a generic symbol for health...
|
| I didn't exclude Asia, I stated that my experience there
| is more limited than the continents I listed. The US
| isn't a reliable authority on any international
| standards.
|
| If you started up a new video game and the health packs
| had green crosses instead of red ones, would you be
| confused?
| [deleted]
| jdavis703 wrote:
| In my limited experience it's more of a southern European
| symbol. For example in the US I'd associate it with
| cannabis.
| bingidingi wrote:
| Well, I suppose with healthcare the way it is in the
| US... maybe smoking cannabis before going to a hospital
| is a good idea.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Definitely a thing in Finland, which is not in southern
| Europe.
|
| https://www.apteekki.fi/
| tyingq wrote:
| That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products
| appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the
| example of a first aid kit with a red cross.
|
| But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate
| representation of real life, within the media itself
| seems...normal.
|
| I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a
| red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of
| first aid kits seem to do. Though perhaps the Swiss wouldn't
| be thrilled. Maybe a white cross in a red circle?
| crooked-v wrote:
| > an accurate representation of real life
|
| In real life, the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a
| specific international organization well-known for their
| neutrality in armed conflict. Portraying it as just meaning
| 'healing' takes away from the power of that neutrality.
| tyingq wrote:
| >the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a specific
| international
|
| It's not though. Lots of military ambulances, from many
| countries, not associated with the Red Cross, have a red
| cross on them.
|
| One example, there are many more: https://www.google.com/
| search?q=british+military+ambulance&t...
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Countries around the world protect the red cross
| emblem and limit its use to official Red Cross
| organizations and programs, as well as the medical
| services of their armed forces. In the United States,
| only the American Red Cross and the medical corps of the
| Armed Forces are permitted by law to use the red cross
| emblem. Some U.S. companies were granted an exception
| that were already using the emblem before 1906. Use of
| the red cross emblem by anyone else is not only
| prohibited, but also unlawful in the United States and
| around the world._ " (https://www.redcross.org/about-
| us/news-and-events/news/2020/...)
| bingidingi wrote:
| These are medical units that fall under the protections
| of the red cross as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
|
| "Under the Geneva Conventions, the three distinctive
| emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red crystal
| are intended to identify and protect medical and relief
| workers, military and civilian medical facilities, mobile
| units and hospital ships during armed conflict."
|
| https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/I
| nte... (PDF)
| tyingq wrote:
| Ah, but going back up to the top, the Red Cross seems to
| be unhappy with in-game depictions of this reality.
|
| Edit: Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the Red Cross
| was complaining about military ambulances, hospital
| ships, and so on, depicted in games. In addition to less
| realistic uses.
| bingidingi wrote:
| Because it's used generally as "health" and not
| "protected health worker" in video games.
|
| I suspect the red cross would not take issue with a game
| using the red cross to depict untargatable aid workers.
| ben0x539 wrote:
| I don't think games are very good about doing an accurate
| representation there. They mostly seem to slap a red cross
| on anything "healing" related, like not-non-combatant
| military medics (Starcraft medics and medivacs come to
| mind, which the game specifically expects you to fire at).
| mcguire wrote:
| Holy shit. They're medics, they're showing a red cross,
| and you're supposed to shoot at them.
| (https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Medic)
|
| Oy.
| kipchak wrote:
| To complicate things one further layer down, what about
| games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having
| products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is
| somewhat common in real life.
| tyingq wrote:
| As you say, some actual US military first aid kits have a
| red cross on them...here's one I've seen in real life: ht
| tps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5435/1460/products/1
| a...
| bingidingi wrote:
| This falls under the appropriate case as defined under
| the Geneva Conventions, because these would be used by
| people administering aid in armed conflict.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| DOOM's health pickups have had the red cross on them, it
| was released in 1994. DOOM was a widespread cultural
| phenomenon, at least in the US. Did the Red Cross try to
| address this at all?
| crooked-v wrote:
| > such as a scene involving army medics
|
| This is actually a completely inappropriate scenario. The
| point of the Red Cross symbol is that it indicates an
| internationally neutral organization that is very
| specifically not associated with any country.
| sofixa wrote:
| You hit the nail on the head!
|
| Army medics != Red cross, and that's a big difference.
|
| If a red cross is taken to mean just army medics, they might
| be considered to be "just" the enemy's medics, a "legitimate"
| target for some, unlike the Red Cross who are neutral and
| help everyone.
| mcguire wrote:
| Ah, ectually, it's specifically for the IRC and military
| medics. https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/s
| tyles/ful...
| Havoc wrote:
| I don't quite get the issue? If anything it ensures every kid
| recognises it & associates it with medical treatment
| crooked-v wrote:
| The issue is that associating it with _just_ medical treatment
| is wrong. It 's the symbol of an organization that's
| internationally recognized as neutral in wartime, and that's
| the important part.
| krtkush wrote:
| What does misuse particularly mean here? I couldn't gather that.
|
| Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid
| kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse?
|
| Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?
| jldugger wrote:
| >Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid
| kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse?
|
| The important thing about the Red Cross and its brand is that
| they are neutral. The Genova convention declared they get a
| special marker, and a rule against harming them in wartime. A
| US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides
| of the conflict, and does not get the special protection the
| rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross. Nor would some
| random soldier carrying a J&J first aid kit get any protection.
| In particular the risk is that the more common that symbol is,
| the less distinctive it is, a particularly troublesome effect
| during armed conflict where decisions about where to point a
| rifle and whether to pull a trigger are being made rapidly.
|
| > Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?
|
| A random hospital definitely cannot, without permission (and
| presumably, some covenants). And it'd definitely not be an
| enforceable trademark on their end so not a smart branding move
| anyways. It's usually not a huge deal -- in the US the hospital
| sign is blue with a big H. In video games you can just use red
| background with a white plus (but thats like, the swiss flag)
| Or in the case of TF2, a red (or blue) cross on a yellow
| circle.
|
| It would likely help their cause if there were an alternative
| public domain recognized symbol. The ISO standard is apparently
| White cross on green background:
| https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:E003 but pretty much
| nobody knows that.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >It would likely help their cause if there were an
| alternative public domain recognized symbol. The ISO standard
| is apparently White cross on green background:
| https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:E003 but pretty much
| nobody knows that.
|
| FWIW, first aid kits in the UK almost exclusively use that
| symbol.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The Halo series quietly switched from a red cross to a red H
| to come into compliance (as the international Red Cross
| didn't gel their position on the symbol's use in videogames
| clearly until after the first game was released).
| jsmith45 wrote:
| > A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both
| sides of the conflict, and does not get the special
| protection the rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross.
|
| The protective use of the Red Cross, is subject to the
| conditions of the Geneva Conventions, and only those rules.
| What any particular Red Cross organization feels is
| completely irrelevant. These rules allow use by one side of
| the conflict's own medics, among other things. There is no
| treating both sides rule or anything like that.
|
| Protective use of the symbol in an inappropriate context is a
| war crime. As is ignoring the symbol and firing upon a
| protected facility.
|
| The Geneva conventions also allow indicative use of the
| symbols by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
| organizations. It is only supposed to be used by those
| organizations in this indicative sense, but it is not viewed
| as a war crime when this is violated.
|
| Using the symbol in a game as a generic symbol for healing or
| medics is wrong. Use of the the symbol in the protective
| fashion in video games is arguably fine, as long as the game
| also treats ignoring the symbol as a war crime. I'm not sure
| I've ever seen a game where the player gets court marshaled
| if they fire upon an enemy's medics wearing the red cross
| symbol though, which is a real problem, and dilutes the
| meaning of the symbol.
|
| One weird thing here is that for example, the American Red
| cross licenses the use of the symbol for purposes like first
| aid kits very much like those found in video games. This is
| in addition to the well known Johnson and Johnson trademark
| allowing them to use it on their first aid kits too.
|
| The First Geneva convention article 39 allows the military to
| order that the symbol be on equipment used by in battle are
| supposed to have the symbol on it, so they would very much
| could carry first aid kits with a red cross on it.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > What does misuse particularly mean here?
|
| Use by organizations other than the International Red Cross and
| Red Crescent Movement.
|
| The point is to strictly maintain the neutrality of the symbol
| in wartime and similar situations, as distinct from merely
| indicating (for example) an army medic of a particular country.
| If it ends up broadly used just to indicate 'first aid', that
| purpose is lost.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Up next: Apple issues wide-spread takedown notice for all video
| games using their classic and instantly identifiable "apple" icon
| to signify food.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| I would be pretty impressed if Apple got their trademark
| enshrined in the Geneva convention like the Red Cross did.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I intended this as more of a jab at how asinine the Red
| Cross's claims are rather than Apple's, I'm a little
| surprised this post got dogpiled as hard as it did
| 81451710235 wrote:
| Can't see how restricting usage of the symbol is helpful at all.
| Pure rent seeking
|
| >In an increasingly uncertain world
|
| ...
| crooked-v wrote:
| > Pure rent seeking
|
| That's just a categorically false accusation, since the whole
| point here is that they don't want the symbol to be used _at
| all_ in certain contexts.
| 81451710235 wrote:
| Yes, so they have sole use of the (rather basic!) symbol >
| more donations
|
| Sad, but all too common with modern charities!
|
| "categorically false". cmon man
| crooked-v wrote:
| There are plenty of non-Red Cross alternative symbols that
| can be used to more generically indicate 'healing'. The Red
| Cross and Red Crescent specifically are meant to be used by
| _members of that organization_ , who are internationally
| recognized as being neutral parties in wartime.
| foolinaround wrote:
| While I completely for the ideals and efforts of the Red Cross
| organization, I felt their statement in the article is rather
| ironic:
|
| "The red cross is a powerful symbol of neutrality, impartiality,
| humanity and hope. Please help us protect it!"
|
| They have redefined the cross, which to Christians, is the symbol
| of God's love for us, and the hope of healing and salvation, and
| therefore the driver for the origination of the organization
| itself - to be the hands and feet of Christ.
|
| They have stripped it of its original meaning (for laudable
| purposes btw), and now are concerned when others do the same...
| stewx wrote:
| To the extent that the symbol is used for regaining health and
| being treated for injuries in games, I don't think it detracts at
| all from the Red Cross mission.
|
| That being said, if the symbol was being used as the emblem of an
| evil army or crime syndicate in a game, I could understand them
| having a problem with it, however.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission
|
| Part of the point of the symbol is to indicate the
| International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,
| specifically, which keeps to strict neutrality in wartime. If
| it starts getting used willy-nilly it puts their members at
| greater risk because they are no longer clearly delineated from
| the medical services or army medics of specific countries.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| Army medics use and wear the red cross, your argument is
| invalid.
| sevenf0ur wrote:
| TF2 has numerous instances of a red cross on a white background:
| https://external-preview.redd.it/SbtWXsikMzEs9ObLuWn1ZOhH4rA...
|
| Here is the relevant US law:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/706
| trollman5000 wrote:
| Learning how to work with 3d gaming tools/libraries now, just so
| I can create a simulator where you kill a bunch of defenseless
| Red Cross workers (all wearing the symbol of course) in a crowded
| office building.
| ottermax8 wrote:
| Not sure what the damages are exactly.
| stan_g wrote:
| Maybe they should ask the people of Haiti, what they think about
| this "pure" symbol. They really shouldn't talk about misuse
| without transparency in their own company.
| https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
| umvi wrote:
| Maybe I'm dumb but... I feel like a red plus sign is too simple
| and generic to be afforded such strict and special protection.
| It's almost universally understood that a red cross is synonymous
| with "first aid" or similar. You can keep insisting that only
| your brand is "velcro" and all others are "hook and loop" or
| whatever, but it's a losing battle and eventually you have to
| accept the ubiquity of the word or symbol.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| > Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva
| Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the
| American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use a red Greek
| cross4 on a white field, with the only exception being that any
| user of such an emblem prior to 1905 would continue to have the
| right to use the emblem. Registrations owned by Johnson & Johnson
| for red Greek crosses date from 1906 and claim first use dates of
| 1898, and thus its right to use those marks were grandfathered
| based on the American Red Cross Charter Act. J&J continues using
| similar trademarks today...
|
| https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...
|
| In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way of
| "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't been
| enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it.
| jp57 wrote:
| > In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way
| of "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't
| been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it.
|
| Was "tissue" ever a trademark? Did you mean "Kleenex"?
|
| FWIW, "Kleenex", "Coke", and "Google", all still have their
| protected status. "Aspirin" _was_ once a trademark (of Bayer?),
| but is no longer.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Yeah, I meant Kleenex. There are more examples here. Some of
| these still hold protected status as you mentioned.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-
| nam...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the
| exclusive right to it
|
| This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international
| treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a
| specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA
| takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a
| violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect
| people and have them withdraw your country from the Geneva
| Conventions. I doubt any party anywhere would ever adopt such a
| platform.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is
| to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying
| its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its
| protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative
| work.
| jldugger wrote:
| > but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like
| hopsital ships, medics, etc.
|
| Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating
| _all sides of a conflict_.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not
| allowed to be armed, or even _armored_. A vehicle with
| that symbol must have absolutely no other use than
| medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an
| ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-
| armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.
| mcguire wrote:
| Interestingly, not necessarily true. (https://ihl-
| databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul)
|
| " _Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to
| medical duties must be respected and protected in all
| circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit,
| outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the
| enemy._
|
| " _As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel
| with small arms to defend themselves or their patients
| and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to
| loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application
| of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not
| to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are
| escorted by military personnel or such personnel are
| present or if the medical personnel are in possession of
| small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and
| not yet handed over to the proper service._
|
| " _Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to
| medical transportation must be respected and protected in
| all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are
| being used, outside their humanitarian function, to
| commit acts harmful to the enemy._ "
|
| Not sure about armor, although the general statement
| seems to be they would only lose their protected status
| if they commit specific actions.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| But it isn't a creative work. It is an adopted symbol more
| akin to a national flag or religious structure. The laws
| that protect it from violence trump things like freedom of
| speech. Use of it in a game, a situation where people can
| simulate the misuse of that symbol, reduce its realworld
| significance.
|
| Prison Architect actually received a notice about this.
| Their answer was very simple: replace the red cross with a
| green one. There is no reason other games cannot also make
| this very minor concession to the Geneva Conventions. It is
| the law.
|
| Look to TV shows. It is very very rare to see an actual red
| cross. Ambulances on shows like Scrubs don't use them.
| Film/TV people know to respect that symbol and only use it
| in very specific scenarios. MASH used it extensively, but
| then too very carefully.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > is a bit much
|
| not really. they've got a zero tolerance approach to the
| appropriation of their symbol because the mission is so
| important and from their perspective it is all downside
| risk to them. they don't care about your video game, all
| they care about is misuse of their symbol.
|
| and they're protected by the geneva convention and have all
| the weight of law behind them.
|
| if they ask you to stop using their symbol its very simple
| and you need to stop.
|
| the clarity of the rule means that they don't need to
| debate which usage is or isn't sufficient to produce the
| effects, it all simply needs to be removed and then they're
| assured it is not being diluted.
|
| that is actually a perfectly reasonable perspective.
|
| the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective arguments
| over the magnitude of the harm being done by the particular
| violation is a feature, not a bug.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police
| their "trademark" instead of their primary mission is a massive
| waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is
| inherently common because the main place the average person
| sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended
| and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.
| [deleted]
| PeterCorless wrote:
| The problem is that it's not just governed by national
| trademark, but by international treaty.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Hold on ... I surely can't go and start a drinks company and
| call my drink coke? Same with a search engine and Google?
| gpm wrote:
| No, but it's a closer call than you might think, and (the
| general idea) has been litigated relatively recently: https:/
| /www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/goo...
|
| Google has also been taking defensive actions to prevent this
| from happening for all of recent history:
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm
| trollman5000 wrote:
| You should call it Red Cross Cola and just mix coke with rat
| poison.
| theodric wrote:
| I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious:
| https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...
| mcguire wrote:
| What's hilarious about it?
| PeterCorless wrote:
| Note that this has been problematic because it's been
| inconsistently enforced. It's also not a new issue. From 2017:
| https://kotaku.com/video-games-arent-allowed-to-use-the-red-...
| [deleted]
| birktj wrote:
| Note that the Red Cross organization doesn't have unique rights
| to the red cross symbol under the Geneva convention, it is
| slightly more complicated than such.
|
| From Wikipedia [1]: "As a protection symbol, they are used in
| armed conflicts to mark persons and objects (buildings, vehicles,
| etc.) which are working in compliance with the rules of the
| Geneva Conventions."
|
| This means that in contrast to what many commenter here are
| saying non-Red Cross medics (including military ones) can and do
| use the red cross symbol to signal that they are such.
|
| This of course does not really change much in regards to the
| usage issue, you are still not allowed to use the symbol for
| other purposes than specified in the Geneva convention.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...
| theodric wrote:
| Incredible amount of pissing and moaning over nothing except
| doing their required diligence to protect their trademark. Not
| news. Sage
| pugworthy wrote:
| FYI this is not a new issue for the Red Cross. A quick search
| finds articles covering the same topic from 2013, and I'm pretty
| sure this is an issue I encountered when working on a game in the
| mid/late 2000's
| janci wrote:
| Wow, it never ocurred to me red cross should not be generic
| symbol for anything health related. It definitely used to be that
| way in recent past - ambulances, first aid kits, many hospitals
| had it in logo. I admit this (mis)use is disappearing, but I
| would never notice.
| theparanoid wrote:
| I doing my part by drawing it in cartoons.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If they're serious, they would try collecting on every
| infringement since.. 1992?
|
| https://wl6.fandom.com/wiki/Health_Items?file=Sprite0162_cop...
| tines wrote:
| Not to detract from the message here, but
|
| > It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us
|
| The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be
| a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically
| correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official
| communication from the Canadian Red Cross group.
|
| I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more
| recently. I guess people feel like they would speak the sentence
| with a pause after the conjunction and therefore the comma goes
| there in writing.
| m1117 wrote:
| They wanted to put emphasis on the pause?
| nuccy wrote:
| It seems they intended to make a pause after "but". For that
| purpose "..." instead of the comma, would actually fit better.
| Lammy wrote:
| This looks like a job for--Emdash Man!
| dang wrote:
| Probably the most excited I've ever personally made PG was
| when he saw me make an em dash on my MBP and immediately
| wanted to know how.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| I would also like to know how!
| Lammy wrote:
| Compose Key followed by three dashes (two and a period
| for an en-dash) https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/li
| bX11/i18n/compose/e...
|
| Also on Windows using WinCompose http://wincompose.info/
| junar wrote:
| Well, parent comment mentioned Mac, so the correct answer
| is Option, Shift, and - (hyphen). There are many other
| characters that Macs can type with the Option key.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Thanks! That is great.
| chomp wrote:
| Correct it does go before the conjunction, and an optional one
| after if you want to draw a pause.
| SamBam wrote:
| No, no optional one after. A comma shouldn't ever be used to
| "draw a pause" in English. It needs to break up logical
| fragments of a sentence.
|
| If you want to indicate a pause to show how you want it read
| you can use an ellipses (...).
| ykat7 wrote:
| > Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world
| to us" the grammatically correct form?
|
| Yep, that's what I would go with. I can't see a use case for a
| comma after the "but" in British nor American English.
|
| > I guess people feel like they would speak the sentence with a
| pause after the conjunction
|
| Even this feels off to me when I read up to the "but" and then
| pause (as opposed to pausing on the "you").
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| It's correct in German, which otherwise has basically the same
| grammar as English.
| rincewind wrote:
| It would not be correct in German either (source: Native
| speaker, went to Grammar School).
|
| This is just another instance of North Americans (I haven't
| really seen this in British English speakers) placing their
| commata not at the boundaries between clauses/phrases, but
| where they pause when they read the sentence out loud. You
| may argue with descriptivism -- that the grammatical rules
| have changed and this is the new normal -- but placing a
| comma like this has the probably unintentional effect that
| reading the sentence out loud now causes you to pause in yet
| a different place.
| tines wrote:
| That's interesting. Is the pause there in spoken German as
| well?
| dgb23 wrote:
| Generally no.
| yatac42 wrote:
| I can't find any evidence of that being true. In this
| article[1] for example, all the examples either have the
| comma before the "aber" or none at all. I can't find any
| example anywhere where a comma after the "aber" would be
| correct nor can I think of one myself.
|
| I also wouldn't say that German has "otherwise the same
| grammar as English". (Or in wrong German: "Ich auch wurde
| nicht sagen dass Deutsch hat ansonsten das gleich Grammatik
| wie Englisch" - even if we're just talking about comma rules,
| the German version should have a comma before the
| "that/dass").
|
| [1]: http://www.neue-
| rechtschreibung.net/2012/04/30/kommasetzung-...
| eldaisfish wrote:
| >which otherwise has basically the same grammar as English
|
| German and English have similar grammar but they are very far
| from being the same. Particular here with commas. Clauses in
| German are almost always marked with commas. English uses the
| comma much more sparingly.
| schoen wrote:
| Yes, it's always odd to me to see native German speakers
| putting a comma before "that" in indirect discourse in
| English (like "ich glaube, dass dieser Satz richtig ist" ->
| *"I believe, that this sentence is correct").
|
| In English there's also a difference in comma usage with
| restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses
| (restrictive relative clauses, which indicate which
| specific entity is referred to as opposed to others, don't
| use commas, while nonrestrictive relative clauses, which
| merely add additional information, do), but I seem to
| remember that native German speakers will commonly write
| both with commas.
|
| *The person, who was here yesterday, has come back.
|
| Conversely, it's sometimes hard for me to remember to use
| that comma in German. I want to write something like *"sie
| sagt dass man hier kein Komma braucht".
| _jal wrote:
| German does not the same grammar as English have.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| OT but it reminds me of that part in Borat where he's learning
| about not-jokes, and he says "This suit is black not," without
| any pause. Similarly odd sort of rhythm to the first part of
| the sentence before the comma.
| bregma wrote:
| For consistency it should also be "it mean's the world to us".
| Grind all my gears at once.
| agbell wrote:
| It does seem strange. If they wanted that emphasis they could
| have used a quote.
|
| > "It may just be a game to you but" Red Cross spokesperson
| tine said "it means the world to us."
| dang wrote:
| Oh my goodness. I didn't even see that, probably because my
| brain regards it as impossible - it's the punctuation
| equivalent of the gorilla walking across the basketball court.
|
| Extreme comma tension now relieved above.
| acheron wrote:
| Ha, the same thing happened to me until I saw the comment.
| The gorilla analogy is just right.
| dmje wrote:
| Came here to say this. Couldn't really see past it, which says
| more about me than anything else.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Humanitarian, my ass. (Yes, of course they have the right to
| their trademark.)
|
| See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-red-cross-and-the-
| holocaust...
|
| > But what began as an organization meant to curb the barbarity
| of warfare has found it difficult to live down its most grievous
| mistake: cozying up to the Third Reich, remaining silent about
| the Holocaust and later helping Nazis escape justice. In his last
| book, "Nazis on the Run: How Hitler's Henchmen Fled Justice"
| (2011), historian Gerald Steinacher chronicled one aspect of this
| shameful era. His newest effort, "Humanitarians at War: The Red
| Cross in the Shadow of the Holocaust," synthesizes what he and
| other historians have learned about the ICRC's conduct during
| this troublesome period before adding new material on what the
| organization did next. This more comprehensive account of the
| ICRC's actions equips the reader to decide whether the
| organization truly recovered from its wartime and postwar errors.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Isn't the Red Cross emblem just an inverse Swiss flag anyways?
| Just pull a Blizzard and make your medics Swiss.
| Kenji wrote:
| Boycott this retarded organization. They're more concerned with
| defending their little symbol than helping those in need. The red
| cross was literally equivalent to "health" and that's why health
| kits that instantly healed you had this symbol on it. Way to
| destroy a brand. Stop terrorizing video game producers and focus
| on your mission again, morons.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > the emblem has been improperly displayed by individuals,
| businesses and organizations in a vast range of uses from first
| aid suppliers through to children's toys.
|
| It looks like the the American and Canadian Red Cross(es)
| actually sell first aid supplies with the emblem:
| https://www.redcross.org/store/first-aid-supplies,
| https://products.redcross.ca/. Is the issue that the emblem is on
| first aid supplies at all, or just first aid supplies made by
| other organizations?
|
| I don't really get the connection between that activity and:
|
| > In fact, the red cross emblem is an important symbol of
| humanitarian protection. It is recognized as such in both
| Canadian and international law which prohibit its unauthorized
| use. Misuse of this valued symbol distorts its meaning and its
| protective value for victims of conflict and the aid workers that
| assist them.
| kleiba wrote:
| I wonder if any actual harm is done (or has been done) to the
| brand (or anything/anyone else for that matter) by including the
| red cross in video games. If anything, it's probably a free ad.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-09 23:01 UTC)