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."
What next? Is Target, Inc. going to complain about the red target symbols for archers that you see in games like Dungeon Seige or WoW?
While I agree that they have used the red cross as their "trademark", it has become known worldwide that, if you see a red cross, it means medical care is nearby.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
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.
And it's not as ridiculous as I first thought. They're not just getting uptight about their "trademark" I think they may be genuinely concerned that the symbol is used in a context that undermines their mission. After all, in a lot of games, a red cross means extra life so you can go out there and kill some more guys. The Red Cross aren't field medics, after all.
In other words, all those red cross symbols on MASH and other TV shows, on first aid kits, and in its numerous ubiquitous appearances in modern society, are apparently violations of the Geneva Conventions and must be banned, regardless of whether they are used in a context offensive to the ICRC or not.
So, to the ICRC: Stop picking and choosing what you're going to speak out about, and start treating all violations equally instead of politically.
Also from that article:
So, I guess the International Red Cross is kinda obligated to go after the non-military uses of that symbol.
To use the international symbol of the Red Cross on a first-aid kit is a violation of its use? It is marked as such because it is a symbol of aid and safety. It is deliberately marked as such to avoid direct attack. Now step back and think about that for a second. How could the virtualization of the real life object (a first-aid kit) be a violation of the trademark? It is a depiction of the actual real object in a virtual context, it is action is the same and it in no way harms or tarnishes the reputation of the owner. Granted the effects of a first-aid kit in game are magnnified dramatically, but so is the entire environment (tempo).
.02 on the situation... Seems like the a case of "crying fox in the chicken coop", but ignoring the wolf slaugherting the cows in the barn.
I fail to see how putting the symbol on a first-aid kit, jeep or truck or box does anything to diminish their message. Just as in the games, in real life as well, first aid supplies get bombed, blown up, destroyed, shot, or sabotaged. We watch footage of such acts on CNN daily. Deliberate or accidental it happens and I see no reason to prosecute the video game industry without first prosecuting EVERY single real violation of the same infringement.
Just my
Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."
Considering they charge the recipients for that aid, yeah, I'd say we can safely call them "fuckers".
"Gee, the coming -20F winters in this POW camp will really suck... We'll gladly sell you this 3x3 wool square..."
"Oh, you need blood or you'll die during a messy childbirth? Don't worry, we have it for you - Some sucker DONATED it for a cup of OJ, but we'll gladly "give" it to you for $300 per unit"
So to hear them bitch about the misuse of their all-but-unprotected trademark... Well, do you hear the violins playing a sad song?
Me neither. Huh.
If I recall correctly, shooting for the medics first was one of the tactics used by the Viet Cong, as well as by the Japanese in WWII, and to some degree the Germans in WWII as well... And if you ask the medics who served during WWII, and during Korea and Vietnam, you'll find that a large number of them didn't wear any identifying red-cross insignia precisely for that reason, and often carried a personal weapon, despite it being technically against regulations. So there's nothing about shooting the medics first that hasn't been part of Real Life for decades already.
Na, I don't think "fuckers" is quite the word I'd use.
They're little better than a cartel with the way they act.
I personally know someone who has been billed by the Red Cross for blood administered to him ON A BATTLEFIELD. Yeah...that same blood that was given to them in exchange for a cup of OJ and a sticker. That is, SOME of that blood, as they sell lots of it to blood products manufacturers also.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Can you supply a reference to your quotes about the Red Cross charging in POW camps and in emergency situations?
A friend of mine that works at Nerve Software tells me that they just invert the colors to make it a white cross on a red background. It avoids the issue, not many people notice, and they havent been bothered by the Red Cross since.
The Red Cross is a currupt organization that takes in billions of dollars and gives out only a few million.
It eats up the rest as "administrative costs"
Right....
So now they're interested in sueing games to protect their precious red cross logo?
Money money money. The red cross is a shitty organization.
Someone earlier mentioned "Christian", but I'd like to expand that to the faiths that share the same diety.
The scouts support the entire line, Zoroastrian, Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam. Realize please that these are all the "same faith", in essence. I'm sure someone is going to criticize me for not being more specific -- but these faiths are all based around the same God, the same series of events, the same scripture (with later faiths accepting more or different scripture and new interpretations).
So, other than the Judeo-Christian line, the scouts accept Buddhism and Hinduism. I'm willing to be the recent influx of H1B visas has put more than a few Indian children in the scouts in recent years, all with fathers with good high paying tech salaries who want only the best for their children (aka $donations$). Also, these two religions are eastern, but generally do not invoke public disgust when mentioned.
I don't think the Scouts have a program for faiths that exist outside of the Scouts organizations self interest in PR. Now please, show me the Satanic, Druidic, or Scientology badges.
~Rebecca
From Redcross.org "Who founded the American Red Cross? Clara Barton (1821-1912) dominates the early history of the American Red Cross, which was modeled after the International Red Cross. She did not originate the Red Cross idea, but she was the first person to establish a lasting Red Cross Society in America. She successfully organized the American Association of the Red Cross in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 1881. Created to serve America in peace and in war, during times of disaster and national calamity, Barton's organization took its service beyond that of the International Red Cross Movement by adding disaster relief to battlefield assistance. She served as the organization's volunteer president until 1904." That's right, the red cross was created in the US of A. "The Red Cross on white background was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva Convention." Yes, that's 1864 in Geneva. The British have no claim on the trademark IMHO.
While it is true that the Boy Scout law has a pledge of "Reverence" and the oath promises "to do my duty to God and my Country," That's about as specific as it gets. The Boy Scouts of America does actually award religious emblems for Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and a number of other religions http://www.scouting.org/awards/religious/awards/. However, they do not make official mention of Athiesm, Agnositicism, nor Unitarian Universalism. Unofficially, however, all of the councils with whom I have been affiliated [most of the ones in Texas] have been quite tolerant of Agnosticism and Atheism, even to the extent that they advertised the option not to attend the non-denominational services being held if your beliefs did not align with the existance of a higher power. As a card-carrying Agnostic Eagle Scout, I felt the need to step in here and dispell some rumors.
I've heard the same, but have no specific reference. A middle-aged student in my US history class last semester said her father was sent a bill for basic rations (food, shelter, etc) he was given by the Red Cross several years after they helped him as a POW; I forget which conflict (WWII to Korean War timeframe). The bill was only a few bucks, but it shocked him so much he has no respect for them. It was the principle of the matter.
Not much to go on, but her father told her first-hand, so I believe it likely happened. I'd like to know if the RC considers their aid to be a loan like with FEMA or to be a gift. In a crisis people will take whatever they can get and forget the fine print, so maybe the world needs a public statement on the matter. Also, do active military get different aid than civilians?
Israel, which has all too much experience dealing with crises requiring blood, has a very unique system. Patients are never charged for blood -- in cash. Instead, they pay with (more) blood (please no jokes about Jewish bloodsuckers). If you donate blood, you are "insured" for 1 year, along with your immediate family. If you have to receive blood, without this insurance, they'll give you what you need, but you have to either pay for it yourself with a donation at a later date, or have someone else donate in your name (instead of in their name).
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Since when does beliving that homosexuality is immoral equate to homophobia? It's a perfectly legitimate position. It does not mean that homosexuals should be treated as lower-class citizens, or that it is unsafe to be around or let children be around homosexuals. It simply means that the practice of homosexuality is deemed wrong, either philosophically or religiously. I see no reason why the BSA should be forced to buy into your own philosophy simply because yours is more politically correct.
As best I can tell, "homophobia" is a word designed entirely to turn discussions into emotional attacks.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/redcross.as p
I know Snopes isn't infallible but I've yet to see any proof of this persistent accusation.
told to me by a female friend whose boyfriend was a marine combat medic in fallujah... basically she talked to him on the phone when he was there, and the story goes: 'we went into this hospital ward, and something seemed suspicious--all the patients were moving around under their blankets. so, we shot them all ... and what do you know? they all had grenades!'
... that the first reaction was to shoot all these people who could just as easily have been totally unarmed patients ... anyway the war crimes that were committed in fallujah, and everywhere else in iraq by the yankees will never be fully known because 99% of the time, they can do whatever they like, without any journalists around to record it.
of course, that part about them all having grenades, i don't really believe at all. but even if it was true
I'll provide references on request (I'd have to dig them out of my files). I don't deny at all that the Koreans, Vietnamese, Germans, and Japanese did it.
I recall a story but a US vet that was fighting in Italy in 43-44 and he was wounded and taken captive by Germans. He had gotten hit in the leg and needed medical attention so they put him with the rest of the captured wounded and put him in a truck and sent him north. He remembered it being clearly marked with red cross emblems and they even had a symbol on top.
As they were traveling an American fighter and started straffing the road. The Italian driver jumped out and fled leaving the Americans alone in the truck. Unable to get up and move he stayed there while the plane made several passes shooting at them and all he could do was curse at the sky.
But apparently the plane was either a bad shot or didn't intend to actual shoot because no one was hit inside the truck, but it made them wonder.
Secondly, Russians/Soviets were notorious for breaking Geneva conventions during WWII so I bet they often would should at German medics (and vice versa).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Yes, it is. To be a homophobe is to be strongly partial to one's own group and intolerant (i.e. opposed to the inclusion or participation) of those who differ.
First, the civil rights movement pushed not only for legal but social equality; that is indeed saying that "this group of people is fine", as in "it's ok if my sister marries one".
Second, sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice"; gays no more choose to be attracted to men than I chose to get hot about women.
(Maybe you had to make such a choice? You're coming off as homophobic here, and it's been found that homophobia often correllates with sexual uncertainty and repressed homosexuality. Are you getting all bent out of shape about people doing something that you'd like to do yourself but feel that you can't?)
Indeed, if sexual orientation were a choice, rationally we'd all have to choose to be bisexual and maximize our chances of a date. Simple economics tells us that we'd adjust demand to meet supply.
There is no single "gay lifestyle" any more than there is a single "straight lifestyle". Some gays make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. Some straight people make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. (Though bigoted legal and social structures sometimes play a role in pushed gays towards unwise choices; if you have to hide your sexuality for fear of discrimination or even an assualt, that can pressure you toward certain choices.)
The BSA is saying "we won't associate with these other people because we think they're morally inferior". Do they have a legal right to do this? Yes. (So long as they are a private organization; the degree of public support they receive calls this into question.) That doesn't make them any less bigoted.
(BTW, to be clear I mean the BSA as an organization. Individual people within in may or may not agree with the official position of the BSA leadership.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood