Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Cross Condemns Misuse of Emblem In Games

Posted by Zonk on from the credit-where-credit-is-due dept.

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."

12 of 563 comments (clear)

  1. Hard to defend the trademark... by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That'll be an interesting trademark to defend:

    1. Its been used in games for two decades now with nary a lawsuit. You have to actually defend a trademark to keep it.
    2. The developers used it in the first place because they routinely saw the symbol in military movies and TV shows emblazoned on the medical jeeps.
    3. Its a symmetrical red plus-sign on a white background. I'm sure its possible to create a more generic symbol but I can't think of any off hand.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, these are the same fuckers that sued the Boy Scounts over a red cross on their "Emergency Preparedness" merit badge; the cross is now green, and has been since 1980.

      Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."

      a. They're protecting a trademark.
      b. They're protecting a reputation.
      c. That reputation is saving lives in an internationally lawful and humanitarian manner.
      d. Their reputation is not blowing people away for any reason whatsoever, including your own troops, prisoners, etc, then getting healed up real quick to do the same thing all over again.

      Na, I don't think "fuckers" is quite the word I'd use.

      Now I like playing video games and I sure don't mind that the you can do things like those outlined in "d" above, but I can understand why an org like this would object to me using their symbol along the way.

      TW

    2. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world"

      Your point? You're giving them a pass for a wrong because they do right?

      What they are doing here is wrong. I don't care who the fuck they are.

      btw, I remember the Red Cross as the "charity" that sucked in millions right after 9/11, playing on people's sentimentality and care to give to the victims but first allocating most of that funding into their general coffers. Then had to be brow beaten to change their tune about allocation of that funding more specifically to projects re the 9/11 attacks.

      Does the Red Cross do many and frequent good things? Yes. Does that mean that they can't be wrong? Hell no.

      "are "fuckers.""

      You suck a cock once, you're a cocksucker. Doesn't matter if you only did it once.

      How disingenuous of you--you defend their reputation but ignore what also should be contributing to that reputation because it doesn't suit your impression of this organization.

      "Now I like playing video games and I sure don't mind that the you can do things like those outlined in "d" above, but I can understand why an org like this would object to me using their symbol along the way."

      This is a trademark and freedom of expression issue, not whether you "like" playing video games.

      The RC should have complained about every literary story where the red cross is used. They should have complained on every past and present med kit with a fucking red plus sign on it. They should have complained when movies display the red symbol as well in their props.

      They didn't.

      I wonder how soon it will be before a lawsuit is forced upon certain game companies. Maybe then we'll see the real reason for this--$$$, not reputation.

    3. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."


      You can do a lot of good things, and in some instances be a real fucker. In this case I think they're being complete sons of bitches, and the good they do doesn't change that. You speak as if you can't be a fucker and a saint at the same time. Sorry, but they don't cancel.

      Like it or not the red cross symbol has been genericized. It's been used all over the place in games without the explicit permission of them. If they didn't like it, they should have stopped this years ago. They didn't, and now they just look like a bunch of asses.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."

      Well... assuming the story is true, yes, they are. Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it. What's so difficult to understand about that?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, he is correct. In Korea and Vietnam, the enemy often targetted the medics as a direct way of ensuring the reductions of our fighting forces. As a former medic who made it out of Korea said in an interview, "that red cross on your back is nothin' more than a target for the enemy."

      That was an emotional interview, too. This big old guy was in tears as he recounted how the men in his care were cut off from their evac choppers, critically wounded time and time again, and spent the nights calling out for their mamas as they lay dying. He got as many of them out of there as he could, but you could see that it really hurt him that he didn't save them all.

      Army Field Medics and Navy Corpsmen will throw themselves in front of any danger, put themselves on top a gernade, take direct fire from the enemy, refuse their own medical treatment, and drown in a sinking ship all to save one more life. That is their duty, and I have never heard of even one who has done anything less than go above and beyond it. They're fucking heros. Each and every one of them.

      If any of you guys are reading this, I salute you. Your job is harder than anyone has any right to ask of you. There's nothing I can say that will truly show how much appreciation I have for your jobs. So I'll just say, "Thank you." I'm glad you guys are out there watching the backs of our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    6. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doing good things does not give you the right to do bad things without being criticised for it.

      How is protecting their trademark a bad thing? If you see a Red Cross on the side of a vehicle or building, ideall you should know that you can run in there and get some medical care or other assistance and be protected, even if you're Osama bin Laden and the Red Cross truck is in Washington, DC.

      The more that people use generic red crosses just to symbolize emergencies or ambulances in general, the less that people will trust a real Red Cross outfit. The abuse of the Red Cross symbol - rightly the property of the organization - impedes its humanitarian goals.

    7. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by srmalloy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While you're listing America's enemies, you should add in the North Koreans, the Iraqis, and might as well get the little conflicts like Haiti, Guatemala, Panama, and our other banana republic invasions into your "we and our allies are always honorable but our enemies are evil" list. And heck, you should expand your list from the narrow focus of "they shoot medics" to include things like throwing babies from incubators while you're at it.

      If I had reliable accounts of the same thing happening in the conflicts you name, I might have cited them, too. Or you could, for example, go ask Walt "Pete" Peters, who served as a Combat Medic in WWII in the 106th Div. 331st Batallion, with the 422, 423 and 424th Regiments, why he didn't wear the Red Cross insignia, or ask Albert Gentile, 84th Infantry Division, Company B, 333 Infantry, why he carried a service .45 automatic. We can't ask Leo Fratella, who was a combat medic attached to the Medical Detachment, 103rd Infantry Regiment, 43rd Division. He took part in the assault of the main Philippine Island of Luzon on January 9, 1945. On January 20th, the 103rd was attacking Japanese positions on Hill 600, near the town of Palac-Palac. Fratella was giving aid to several wounded comrades when he was killed by Japanese machine-gun fire.

      But since you bring up Korea, let's look at an account from Leon Thomas, Adjutant of Military Order of the Purple Heart, Chapter 604, Bakersfield, California.:

      "A few months out of KCUHS High School in Jan 1951, I enlisted in the US Army for a three year hitch. I was working for Isotherms , a sheet metal /Insulation Company at the time. After Basic Training at Fort Ord I was a Medic during the Korean War, and can attest to the cruelty of the enemy when it came to shooting Medics. On my first day with Charlie Co. 8th Cavalry. Regiment as one of their Two Medics, we were on Patrol as we moved up a hill along a dusty road on a very hot sultry day. The Flank guard on the left of our column was hit. As is usually the case the wounded man yells medic I'm hit. I could see he was down on the ground, I started sprint down the slight incline to give him help, all decked out in my brightly colored arm band and helmet with their distinctive Red Cross to signify first aid. I did not get 10 long steps down the Hill until they enemy opened fire on me. I made it down to carry the guy back to some cover before I patched him up' to stop the bleeding. He lived to fight another day. But, As soon as we got the soldier on his way to the first Aid Station for more medical care. I quickly removed my Red crosses and quickly got my hands on a side arm for protection. It did not take me long to change my mind about carrying a weapon. You see I attended an Assembly of God Church and believed, I did not want to bear arms against another man. That changes when the other man starts shooting at you, even when you do not carry a gun."

      There have been violations of the "rules of civilized warfare" as long as people have had the misconception that there can be 'civilized' warfare. And the fact that I cited the Viet Cong, Japan, and Nazi Germany as specific examples doesn't mean that the US, Britain, France, Russia, Italy, or any other participant in a war from WWII forward hasn't done the same thing. The argument was that having the Red Cross insignia in games would encurage people to shoot medics first, and that this would transfer back to the Real World -- but it was in the 'real world' decades before there were FPS shooters from which it could be transferred, so the argument was specious.

    8. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by G-funk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. A red cross sign doesn't mean "the red cross corporation (tm)" to anybody, it means:

      a)This guy patches people up
      b)He doesn't carry a weapon
      c)Don't shoot him.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  2. Illegal and detrimental? by firewrought · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You catch more flies with honey than vinegar... instead of issuing nastygrams to the press, the red cross could brainstorm some alternative iconography (maybe the pharamaceutical snake and staff?), maybe even hire a graphic artist to create a few public domain PNG's, and contact game developers individually with a softly worded approach. Get two or three of them to sign a public statement supporting the cause. Then maybe follow with a few press releases and "reluctantly" throw in something near the end about trademark, etc.

    I'm not trying to comment on the article or poo-poo the Red Cross; I was just struck that there's a lot to learn here... as a general rule, you can be more effective in communicating with others if you choose positive approaches in preference to negative ones. Of course, it's often more costly to find those positive approaches... it can take creativity, patience, and self-denial.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  3. Re:ICRC can't pick and choose by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    M*A*S*H is fine because it's a historical fiction and the use is consistant with armed forces medical personnel. But many other uses, like on civilian ambulances and medical equipments would most likely be in violation. Games probably _aren't_ because they're depictions of armed forces and war.

    But what if a game IS historical fiction? What about all those various WWII/Veitnam games where medkits, ambulances, and medical tents all have red crosses on them, exactly like they did in the real wars? Are they suddenly not exempt simply because they're a game, and not a TV show?

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  4. But why does it mean that to you? by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But why does a red cross sign mean that to you? Because a lot of very brave people have worked really hard and in many cases put their lives on the line for over a hundred years and argued with governments and military organisations until the sign became a universally recognised symbol for this activity. Two hundred years ago if some guy was wandering around on a battlefield with a red cross you'd probably be wondering why he was wearing a reversed Swiss flag and go ahead and shoot him without a second thought. Look at the mixed opinions right now about the Red Cross adopting a red diamond as a neutral symbol for some Middle East conflicts - but in a hundred years time I don't think people will give it a second thought - after Red Cross folk have died wearing the symbol and argued with politicians and street fighters for another few decades.


    So I say: give them some credit for all their work, and if they don't want their symbol used in a particular manner, respect their opinion.

    Besides, what have you done to support their work recently?