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."

Comments

Re:Hard to defend the trademark...

[RevDobbs]

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.

I RTFA...

[ScaryMonkey]

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.

ICRC can't pick and choose

[Dachannien]

Wikipedia notes that according to the Geneva Conventions:

The red cross emblem is to be used only to denote the following:
* facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members
* armed forces medical personnel and equipment;
* military chaplains;
* Red Cross groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross; the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, formerly "the League of Red Cross Societies"; and the 182 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.

The Geneva Conventions obliged their signatories to prevent the unauthorized use of the name and emblem in wartime and peacetime in order to ensure universal respect for the emblem.

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.

Re:No right to sue

[RevDobbs]

Also from that article:

The Geneva Conventions obliged their signatories to prevent the unauthorized use of the name and emblem in wartime and peacetime in order to ensure universal respect for the emblem.

Nevertheless, the emblem is often used to indicate first aid, medical supplies, and the like, which are abuses of the emblem and shall be forbidden by all signatory powers to the Geneva Conventions. In order to avoid this conflict, a different-colored cross is often used.

So, I guess the International Red Cross is kinda obligated to go after the non-military uses of that symbol.

Re:Hard to defend the trademark...

[srmalloy]

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.

Re:Hard to defend the trademark...

[navig]

Can you supply a reference to your quotes about the Red Cross charging in POW camps and in emergency situations?

Re:Hard to defend the trademark...

[mikeage]

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).