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."
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.
In a related segment, a Red Cross spokesperson has told of plans to sue the Catholic church.
I Hate Allan
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"?
...you're next.
You say
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,'
Right because heaven forbid young people get the redcross emblem associated with help when you need it as that is just plain slanderous against the poor red cross.
W...T...F...???
Now you bastard campers won't be able to collect health packs while hiding in your little towers!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
In the article, in the upper right corner is a picture of a Red Cross truck. You know what my first thought was? Run into it and absorb it, full health!
Let's hope I never see one on the freeway.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
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.
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.
i am now dumber for having read that.
The fact that the Red Cross is also used in [real worlds] which contain strong language and violence is also of concern to me, in that these worlds directly conflict with the basic humanitarian principles espoused by the Red Cross movement.
If they don't want us to use a red cross in games, they should stop putting health in the med kits.
That's exactly the kind of misuse that the Red Cross is asking people to prevent. The Red Cross is a symbol of protection, not healing.
It should be put on armor packs.
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
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.
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Would you send your 12 year old daughter camping with a 35 year old man, or your 12 year old son camping with a 35 year old woman? Well, this is slashdot and a lot of readers don't have a lot of common sense, but I'd wager most people wouldn't. I work with teens a fair amount, and everytime anything happens about which there has been a remotely related lawsuit in the past, the person in charge always says, "this is a big liability." Poison oak: liability. Diving into a river without an OSHA approved diving board: liability. Male chaparone and female student seen walking out of the woods together: holy crap, I think I just dropped a load of liability in my pants!
The boy scouts looked at how much litigation has taken away from really good youth organizations and realized, sending kids camping with a gay guy as their chaparone is just as much a liability as sending them camping with an adult of the opposite sex as their chaparone. Thankfully, we had people who think that political correctness is the greatest good in the world to turn it into a lose-lose situation for the scouts.
I have an emergency box that isn't a standard first aid kit. I use two feet of red duct tape, with smaller inlaid reflective tape like this stuff http://www.reflectivelyyours.com/generic123.html) in case the lights are out, to make a red-cross-like symbol on it so anyone who grabs it or needs to find it can do so in a hurry. Should I be turning myself in? I mean its no different that I use it for my own personal gain (insert evil laugh?) than blizzard using little dancing logos in WoW when you use bandages, is it? I'm sorry I thought the Red Cross has other shit to worry about than someone using what I would consider a universal symbol for "NEED FIRST AID LOOK HERE!"
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
Two soldiers at an artillery emplacement in 2015.
Soldier 1: Should we shoot it? It looks like a medical truck.
Soldier 2: I've been playing video games my whole life and medical stuff ALWAYS uses GREEN crosses. That fucker's CLEARLY red - no way that's a medical truck. Blow it to hell!
Turn the health powerup 45 degrees and claim to the suits "it's a red X!"
The boy scouts looked at how much litigation has taken away from really good youth organizations and realized, sending kids camping with a gay guy as their chaparone is just as much a liability as sending them camping with an adult of the opposite sex as their chaparone.
Oh, and I missed your (literally) homophobic comment. Gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. If this is your justification for what the boyscouts and girlscouts did, it's just plain bigotry. 100 years ago white parents probbably wouldn't trust sending their kid out in the woods with a black man. Does that justify racism too?
AccountKiller
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 dont really see why this is such a big deal... it is a GAME! a GAME! as in not real.
and I'm really pissed about the Red Cross using our symbol... the red cross. I mean we fought the Crusades for centuries, went underground for like a few decades and these people think they can just take the symbol of the Knights Templar? Take the fucking Hospitalers symbol it would make sense anyway!
This
Only to the same extent that a Christian merit badge would involve blowing up women's clinics, or a Jewish one torturing Palestinians.
Sadly, every creed is well-supplied with violent idiots. (I'm sire somewhere out there there's even an atheist or two who's killed people over issues of religion.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Excuse me, would you mind helping me with this crossword puzzle that I'm working on? It's #13 down: "Another name for a scarecrow." Here's what I have so far: S*R*WMA*. Any ideas?
It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
One shot, one kill. It increases realism in games, I'm for it!
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -- George W. Bush
When I was a Cub Scout, many many years ago, we had a Den Mother. I don't think we ever went overnight camping, but I don't see much less "liability" in leaving a bunch of boys with an older woamn in a suburban basement than in the woods.
IOW, your "liability" excuse is a poor attempt to retconn homophobia. Especially when the Scouts themselves state, "Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program...Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath."
So, BSA are avowed homophobes. Fuck them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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 on a white background has come to symbolize basically any emergency medical support. Like the term "Asprin," it is in broad use enough that it doesn't represent a company or group, but (in this case) a service.
It's not like it was a particularly original symbol to begin with.
The ______ Agenda
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
I've cycled through them all, tried them out, and I've come to this conclusion:
...you insensitive clots...
I don't like any of the other UT custom crosshairs!
One man's constant is another man's variable.
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.
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
This is typical IP law gone nuts
We also have aircraft manufacturers sueing people (or threatening to sue them) for using their designs and names in games. So people have to build fictional planes instead. Now there is a need to come up for a new simulated symbol for health/medical care in video games.
Pretty soon what you'll get is an extreme divergence between the real world and simulated worlds. Stuff gets less realistic, less educational and just plain less cool.
I say there should be some exemption for such law in simulation.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
No. Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
And to say someone "simply doesn't approve" of homosexuals is no more sensible than saying somone "simply doesn't approve" of black people or Jews or any other group.
I can picture you in the 1960s: "Black people's push for tolerance should not be overrun by a push for acceptance; it's enough that I let them live in my neighborhood, I shouldn't be socially pressured to let my sister date one."
Sorry, no. Bigotry sucks, and we're now in a time when homophobes are going to be called on it the way racists were decades ago.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
From the flag of Switzerland... Since Switzerland was traditionally neutral, they created the red cross to be similiar to signify neutrality. They reversed the colors.
If the Red Cross is going to go after video game developers, I think that Switzerland should go after the Red Cross.
Same system here in India, my blood donation gives me a card which entitles me blood for myself or immediate family in case of need.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
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
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?
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.
Nope - a red cross on a white background means that the bearer is a Knight Templar in the Middle Ages (around 1200AD), a European Crusader warrior for the Christians involved in a Holy War against the Moors (Muslims of Turkey and the Middle East). The Templars also happened to have hospitals which were open for public use - as did pretty much any holy order of most religions - but you can be pretty damned sure they carried some very nasty weapons, and were known for meting out some very unpleasant retribution on Muslim civilians (the Moors were also guilty of some awful attrocities- it was a particularly bloody period of history on all sides, but that's religion for you).
Various bodies still associating themselves with the Knights Templar still exist today, most of which are fairly harmless religious sects (well, as harmless as monotheism can be), but a small minority are fronts for racist right-wing extremists.
The word "hospital" also comes from related Crusader cult, the Knights Hospitaller (aka the Knights of Malta) who were charged with protecting Christian pilgrims on their journies to the Middle East. "Hospitaller" was the word for the staff of a "Hospice" or "Hostel"- words meaning a hotel for pilgrims; primarily providing bed and food, but usually also some basic medical facilities (pilgrims would usually be old or ill anyway, and usually embarked on their pilgrimage in the hope of divine intervention against a terminal illness). However, the Knights Hospitaller's symbol was a white Maltese cross on a red background - the opposite of the Red Cross symbol.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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
I don't know that that system would work well in the US.
For one thing, not everyone can give blood, due to certain restrictions.
I, for example, cannot, where the Red Cross is concerned, since I lived in Western Europe for more than 6 months since 1980. The FDA bars anyone who has spent 6 months or more in the UK between 1980 and 1996(?) from giving blood, but the Red Cross' rules are slightly more stringent (3 mo in UK/6 mo Western Europe).
There may be other FDA regulations that I'm unaware of, but with the Red Cross' rules, that rules out quite a number of people who have foriegn service jobs. Given the fact that there may be other FDA rules for other areas of the world with potential infectious agents, this might not be feasible in the US. I've only ever been able to donate blood to myself for surgery.