Slashdot Mirror
Red Cross Condemns Misuse of Emblem In Games
Heartless Gamer writes "The British Red Cross has told GamesIndustry.biz that it hopes to work with developers to prevent the 'illegal and detrimental' misuse of the red cross emblem in videogames. From the article: 'It is important for videogame manufacturers not to use the emblem in their games, including for matters related to its humanitarian purpose, such as first aid or general medical care,' said Michael Meyer, head of international law for the British Red Cross."
According to Wikipedia, "The Red Cross is an emblem which, under the Geneva Conventions, is to be placed on humanitarian and medical vehicles and buildings to protect them from military attack on the battlefield."
Seems to me the Red Cross organization doesn't have exclusive rights to the symbol.
In the U.S., the Red Cross doesn't depend on trademark law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00000706----000-.html is a special law just for them:
Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" or any combination of these words shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
From the article:
We would be willing to work with a videogame manufacturer to produce a game which shows the emblem in its correct use, as a symbol of protection during armed conflict, and where the player is rewarded for using the emblem correctly.
It's not a matter of a trademark, it's a matter of having gamers understand what the Red Cross is and does.
I don't know about the "battlefield" situation, but the Red Cross has to charge hospitals (then billed to patients/insurance) for the blood they draw or they wouldn't be able to provide the blood at all.
I worked in American Red Cross Blood Services for seven years (1989-1996) and the blood people donate costs a lot of money to process and distribute. Testing (infectious diseases, blood type, etc.), processing (dividing the blood into its constituent parts - red blood cells, plasma, platelets, cryoprecipitate), storage and distribution all add costs to the process. That part of the American Red Cross doesn't sell blood to make a profit but rather has to do so in order to cover the costs of the operation.
One example: The department I worked in - covering a large number of hospitals' blood needs - had 8-10 people who were responsible for the clerical side of positive test notification, checking donors against a list of "deferred" donors, etc. That's 8-10 paid employees just for "paperwork" (most of which was federally mandated/regulated), never even laying hands on the blood products; imagine how many more were necessary to actually deal with the blood physically.
There are for-profit operations that provide blood products (most notably the places where you can sell your plasma) and they often do pay people for their blood. Of course, that cost gets passed on to the hospitals/patients as well...
The American Red Cross was given protected use of the red cross symbol in a federal charter in 1900. It was already in popular use at that time, but so be it. Therefore it isn't likely to be the trademark law that you'll have to deal with.
http://www.redcross.org/museum/charters.html
The charter granted full legal standing to the organization and protected its right to use the red cross emblem while setting fines and punishment for misuse of the emblem and for false representation of the organization.
Otherwise, you guys would be right.
Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming. -Brian Kernigan
Jingoism stems from a period of British history when the Empire was finally beginning to overstretch; in London, and subsequently around the country, an extremely well received song, 'By Jingo', was performed, essentially bemoaning the treachery of foreigners, nobility of British civilising Empire, and staunch support for our boys out there fighting the evil fuzzy wuzzies and smelly Russkies... By Jingo.
It refers to an innate, inaccurate, emotive patriotism that has little to do with a rational assessment of the facts, that is keyed simply around 'Us' and 'Them'. Appropriately, the original song was also justifying the support of power-politics with fairly severe humanitarian outcomes.
Jingoism is a real word with a specific meaning, context and history, all of which are appropriate here. Simply because you don't understand a word, or the precision of its usage doesn't mean its pretentious; it means that if you wish to fully understand the references an author is making you need to discover more about the words they use.
Matt