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."

53 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 RevDobbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Jozer99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The red cross also threatened legal action against the Stanford math department for "repleated and blatant use of our symbol in mathematics to convey addition".

    5. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by macklin01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, at first I thought you might be confusing it with the safety merit badge, which has a white cross on a green background. But then I looked at the actual emergency prepardness badge, and sure enough, there's a small green cross on the top. It's also interesting to note that the cross makes up only a small portion of the badge, which makes me wonder if it was more prominent in the original badge.

      The first aid badge is also a cross design: a green cross on a red background. Quite a bit different from what we'd associate with typical first aid kit: a red cross. -- Paul

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    6. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by log2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least in Australia they give us a beer for our blood :)

      Gets you drunk much faster :D

      --
      Can your karma go above being Excellent?
    10. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by navig · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    11. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, but from what I hear, in Australia they give you beer just for breathing!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. 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.

    13. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Babbster · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

    14. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by LukeWebber · · Score: 3, Funny

      How come I'm missing out? A stinking cup of tea is the best I can manage, and a plastic cup at that.

      Let's see now, 61 donations makes two and a half slabs they owe me. Who should I call to arrange delivery?

      Luke

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just as an example, from the other foot. The very first thing we did during the siege of Fallujah was take out the hospitals (the military viewed them as being sympathetic to the insurgents because they'd release civilian casualty figures, in addition to the obvious fact that they were rescuing wounded insurgents for medical care). We siezed the main hospital, bombed a smaller one flat, and shot up half a dozen ambulances.

      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. But to only mention nations that you're hostile to and conviently leave out the fact that your nation has done the same is jingoism.

      --
      It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
    18. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really think the people suing over trademarks are the same people out getting medical aid to the third world?
      Not remotely similar.
      Big charities today tend to carry big burueacracies with them, and we all know how bureaucracies work. I seem to recall the Red Cross being the target of criticism a few times because money that was donated to help with such and such disaster never got there.
      So, no, I don't see any problem with ridiculing the organization as much as it deserves it. The real people who matter, the actual "good guys" would be out there helping no matter what. They'd be doing the exact same stuff under a different name. And who knows, maybe they'd have more medicine/food/etc. to handout under a smaller organization less concerned with trademarks and more concerned with helping the needy.
      For myself, I prefer to give to charities without hired employees, charities that help the local community, and in general charities where I have a reassurance that my money is going to feed people, not to hire secretaries, supervisors, and trademark lawyers.

    19. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by mikeage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    20. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can find a sense of humor over there on the left in the box marked "Sense of Humor". Take what you need but use what you take.

        Since you clearly don't have one and don't appear to have been here before I thought I'd be helpful and tell you where to find it. Printed instructions for installation come in the package but if they confuse you just shove it up your ass. It's self installing.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    21. 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!
    22. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      They're trying to protect their "trademark" because it's being misrepresented and misused and it could put Red Cross personnel in danger.


      This is the most absurd thing I've heard this week (and the Bush administration is still in office.. so I hear a lot of absurd things). How is a video game putting Red Cross personnel in danger?

      --
      AccountKiller
    23. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by lasindi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The very first thing we did during the siege of Fallujah was take out the hospitals (the military viewed them as being sympathetic to the insurgents because they'd release civilian casualty figures, in addition to the obvious fact that they were rescuing wounded insurgents for medical care).

      I can't claim to be an expert on this topic, but it's well-known that insurgents in Iraq and Israel use buildings like mosques and hospitals to store munitions and for protection. Ambulances are often used in a similar way. If you were a soldier fighting the insurgents, would decide to simply take fire from a mosque or hospital without being able to respond? You may want to consider that the medical helicopters the US military uses cannot carry guns by law; even though they often draw fire from the ground, they cannot defend themselves except by getting away fast. It's difficult and sometimes impossible to obey the rules of war if the other guys aren't.

      I'm not trying to excuse everything the US is doing in Iraq; I'm just trying to point out that there's a very important context for those decisions by the military that you're leaving out.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
    24. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by instarx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this jingoism you speak so highly about is rather called for. those hospitals and ambulances wearing the red cross were found to house weapons and transport enemies.

      The problem is that I don't believe much of anything I read or even see in our great PR war. I think a great example was the raid on the hospital where Jessica Lynch was being "held". It turned out that her elevation to Hero was all government PR spin done without her knowledge. Also it turned out that the midnight commando raid to rescue her (how convenient was it that the commandos took along video cameras!) was also staged. The doctors and staff at the Iraqi hospital were protecting her and had actually contacted US forces to come and get her.

      So did the hospital/arms depots in Falluja consist of a few AKs for protection? Were the arms found all in one room (can you not see doctors telling fighters - "No guns! Leave all weapons in this roonm! No guns in the hospital!"). Were arms caches found at ALL hospitals? Were the hospital's staff forced at gunpoint to allow the fighters to store arms there? Were ALL ambulances being used to transport weapons or did we find one? We don't know those facts because all our news goes through government PR hacks whose job it is to present the picture the way they want us to see it.

      Maybe the hospitals deserved to be bombed, but maybe they didn't - we can't tell from the PR garbage we are fed. BTW Jingoism is never "called for" - it is bad by definition.

    25. Re:Hard to defend the trademark... by Thangodin · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not preventing use of the trademark (RTFA). They want it used strictly in the way it's supposed to be used in war--not, for example, as a disguise for your covert ops to penetrate enemy defenses, etc. They don't want it portrayed in any way that can be viewed as a threat, making them look like a viable target.

      And whether people respect it as such now, the ideal that they're going for is that people don't attack medics for humanitarian reasons. They would at least like to get the soldier home alive, even if he can't fight anymore.

  2. Breaking news... by Red+Cape · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a related segment, a Red Cross spokesperson has told of plans to sue the Catholic church.

    1. Re:Breaking news... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Funny

      I seem to recall that he washed his hands of the matter. In fact, he invented washing hands of matters.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  3. Look out switzerland... by gnuadam · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you're next.

    --
    You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    1. Re:Look out switzerland... by Krach42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Red Cross was founded by a guy from Switzerland, and he adopted as their logo the Swiss flag with the colors inverted.

      Bonus points if you knew he did this because Switzerland was neutral, and that he wanted the Red Cross to have the same benefits of neutrality.

      Thus, if you see a red/white cross on a red/white field: don't shoot.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  4. Hah! by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  5. Hahaha I've got it bad... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    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>
  6. No right to sue by boldtbanan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:No right to sue by RevDobbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  7. I RTFA... by ScaryMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. ICRC can't pick and choose by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. 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.
  9. Violent games? What about the violence of reality? by Stradenko · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The fact that the Red Cross is also used in [videogames] which contain strong language and violence is also of concern to us in that they directly conflict with the basic humanitarian principles espoused by the Red Cross movement," Pratt stated.

    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.
  10. If they don't want us to use a red cross in games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they don't want us to use a red cross in games, they should stop putting health in the med kits.

  11. Re:Excuse me? by tengennewseditor · · Score: 5, Funny
    The Red Cross is an international symbol of healing.

    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.

  12. 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
  13. There's a special law just for this symbol by klossner · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. So sue me by drxray · · Score: 3, Funny
    <font color=#FF0000>+</font>
    So sue me.
    --
    Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
  15. Re:I would sue the Scouts too by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. I fix by nsayer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turn the health powerup 45 degrees and claim to the suits "it's a red X!"

  17. Who said anything about suing? by AusIV · · Score: 5, Informative
    The majority of this thread seems to think the Red Cross is going to start suing people for using their "trademark." However having read the article, I did not come across the word "sue" or "trademark." The Red Cross simply wants the gaming industry to stop misrepresenting the Red Cross.

    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.

  18. Re:I would sue the Scouts too by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  19. Denmark quick to respond by jmenon · · Score: 4, Funny
    Shortly after the comments were made, the following article was printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten:

    Copenhagen (9 February 2006) -- In order to avoid any accusations of possible insensitivity towards important international icons, the government of Denmark today issued a rapid response to the comments by the Red Cross regarding the use of its symbol in video games.

    "Denmark always exercises extreme caution when it comes to respectful use of international symbols," explained Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. "Beginning today, all Danish-made video games will eliminate the use of a red cross emblem as requested. While we are not yet certain what image will be authorized to replace the red cross, the leading contender is a red crescent moon," he said. Once the red crescent image is ready, he explained, Denmark will call on newspapers from across Europe to join them in support of this deliberately meaningful gesture."

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -- George W. Bush
  20. Re:I would sue the Scouts too by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Informative
    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?

    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
  21. Federal Charter by Bretai · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  22. Re:I was going to agree with you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  23. 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?

  24. Red Cross = Christian Warrior by evilandi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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