Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Red Cross Condemns Misuse of Emblem In Games 563

Posted by Zonk 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Cross Condemns Misuse of Emblem In Games More

Red Cross Condemns Misuse of Emblem In Games

Comments Filter:

  • Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:20PM (#14682756) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

      The flag of Japan?

      ...Stu

    • 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.

      • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:42PM (#14682925)
        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

        • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:49PM (#14683435)
          "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.

        • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:13PM (#14683648) Homepage

          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.

        • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:16PM (#14683665) Homepage

          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?

          • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:31PM (#14684181)
            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.

            • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by G-funk ( 22712 ) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:22AM (#14685422) Homepage Journal
              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.

              • But why does it mean that to you? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by fantomas ( 94850 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @04:48AM (#14685997)
                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?

              • Red Cross = Christian Warrior (Score:5, Informative)

                by evilandi ( 2800 ) <andrew@aoakley.com> on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:49AM (#14686141) Homepage
                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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

          • 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?

            I don't see anyone failing to understand that. The strong language used against the Red Cross did more than criticize a specific action; it characterized them as malevolent. In this case, pointing out their humantarian mission demonstrates a contradiction to the characterization and shows that further information is needed before their motives/actions can be under

        • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @11:27PM (#14684907)
          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.

        • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Thangodin ( 177516 ) <elentar@NOSpAm.sympatico.ca> on Friday February 10, 2006 @10:19AM (#14687366) Homepage
          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.

      • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Informative)

        by macklin01 ( 760841 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:57PM (#14683515) Homepage

        You know, at first I thought you might be confusing it with the safety [tall66.com] merit badge, which has a white cross on a green background. But then I looked at the actual emergency prepardness badge [mudies.com], 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

    • I had assumed that a red cross (it's not even a cross, it's a +) was the universal symbol for hospital or medical care, and the Red Cross used it as its logo because of that. Maybe it's the other way around.
    • That symbol is at least as old as the Knights Templar [beyond.fr]. I don't think you can trademark a 900-year-old symbol, even in the post-Sonny Bono era.

      Just another great argument in favor of finding a more effective beneficiary for your donations. Time and again, the Red Cross have proven to be assholes with a red capital 'A' on a white background.
      • Sonny Bono had to do with copyright law, not trademark law.

        Also, there is no requirement that a trademark originate with the user of the mark. You could use a ten-thousand year old symbol if you like, provided that you meet the actual requirements for trademarkability. Basically, if the mark identifies goods and services as having a particular origin, it'll work.
        • Correct (I was being facetious about the trademark isue, but not about the staggering lack of uniqueness or originality behind the Red Cross's complaint).

          At any rate, someone posted a US Code citation below that suggests there's a completely-unique species of Federal law dedicated specifically to protect that symbol. If I don't hear anything dumber than that this week, I guess I should count myself lucky...

    • Re:Hard to defend the trademark... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jozer99 ( 693146 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:57PM (#14683509)
      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".
    • The red cross on a white background has come to symbolize basically any emergency [navy.mil] medical [kidsdomain.com] support. [usgs.gov] 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 [google.com] symbol to begin with.

  • Breaking news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Red Cape ( 854034 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:23PM (#14682787) Homepage Journal
    In a related segment, a Red Cross spokesperson has told of plans to sue the Catholic church.

  • Inconceivable! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thewiz ( 24994 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:24PM (#14682790)
    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.
    • Except for those parts of the world where it's the Red Crescent.

    • 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?

      A couple of years ago, Ralph Lauren (the designer) sued the US Polo Association (est. 1890) over trademarked use of the word "Polo". Lauren, who launched the brand in 1967, won.

  • Look out switzerland... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gnuadam ( 612852 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:24PM (#14682793) Journal
    ...you're next [google.com].

  • WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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...???

  • Hah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:26PM (#14682811)
    Now you bastard campers won't be able to collect health packs while hiding in your little towers!

  • 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.

  • No right to sue (Score:5, Informative)

    by boldtbanan ( 905468 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:28PM (#14682827)
    According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "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.

    • Re:No right to sue (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RevDobbs ( 313888 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:40PM (#14682916) Homepage

      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.

    • Another good reason to fly the St. Georges flag on the roof during a war :) Thanks for that.
    • Im staring at the neutrality symbols and I looked at the lion and wondered what it was holding in it's hand. My first thought was sword but then what is that doing there. Can someone please answer this question??
    • Too bad you didn't read down to the part of the page where it said:

      "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."

  • So I suppose that's why BioWare suddenly removed the red cross from the healing kits in an early patch to Neverwinter Nights?
    Here's one mod [ign.com] that restores them among other things.
    • Heh, for the longest time, I've always had this nagging feeling that there was supposed to be a red cross on the healing kits. Like, I thought I remembered seeing them in Neverwinter Nights... but couldn't exactly recall why.

      [Wow, this change happened a long time ago. I've got a backup of my Override directory containing the modified iit_medkit_001.tga with a September 2002 timestamp.]

  • I RTFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScaryMonkey ( 886119 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:30PM (#14682841)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:32PM (#14682857)
    Wikipedia notes that [wikipedia.org] 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.

    • I just checked on the legal indicia on the Band-Aid site (http://www.bandaid.com/kits.shtml [bandaid.com]) and saw this: "The RED CROSS Design is a registered trademark of JOHNSON & JOHNSON. Products bearing this trademark have no connection with the American National Red Cross". So using a Red Cross for specific things (trademark law) is legally viable in the US at least.

      As far as MASH goes, given the show was ostensibly portraying "facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members", I can't see t
    • 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.

      The irony is a battlefield medic is probably best *NOT* to wear the red cross because many adversaries blatantly violate the Conventions and will target medics to demoralize units.

      • Re:ICRC can't pick and choose (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AeroIllini ( 726211 ) <aeroilliniNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:40PM (#14683366)
        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?

  • They can sue the British royal family [wikipedia.org] while they're at it.

    In all seriousness though, surely use of the red cross in computer games (as in movies, cartoons and TV) helps to spread the awareness of the purpose of the symbol.

    It's a universal symbol for a medkit in gaming. The games are just reflecting its use in real life - hardly something you would prosecute over, is it?

  • Violent games? What about the violence of reality? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stradenko ( 160417 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:37PM (#14682889) Homepage
    "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.

  • If they don't want us to use a red cross in games (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:38PM (#14682899)
    If they don't want us to use a red cross in games, they should stop putting health in the med kits.

  • Illegal and detrimental? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by firewrought ( 36952 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:46PM (#14682955)
    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.

  • There's a special law just for this symbol (Score:5, Informative)

    by klossner ( 733867 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @06:47PM (#14682965)
    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 [cornell.edu] 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.
  • The asprin trademark got so watered down, that it became a household name, and lost their trademark (Genericized trademark [wikipedia.org]

    Would this be a similar case? I can't even begin to count the number of games and television shows I've seen this mark used in, going back to Dandy Dungeon on the atari. Hell, I'm sure a number of boardgames have used it. The mark's been 'misused' for decades -- isn't it a little late in the game to try and enforce it?

  • So sue me (Score:4, Funny)

    by drxray ( 839725 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:17PM (#14683209) Homepage
    <font color=#FF0000>+</font>
    So sue me.

  • So if I understand this correctly..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UnidentifiedCoward ( 606296 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @07:54PM (#14683483)
    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).

    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 .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 fix (Score:4, Funny)

    by nsayer ( 86181 ) <{moc.ufk} {ta} {reyasn}> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:16PM (#14683666) Homepage
    Turn the health powerup 45 degrees and claim to the suits "it's a red X!"

  • Who said anything about suing? (Score:5, Informative)

    by AusIV ( 950840 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:20PM (#14683701)
    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.

  • Hi, my name is Jaques DeMolay (Score:3, Funny)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) * <ellem52@g3.14159mail.com minus pi> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:36PM (#14683819) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • Denmark quick to respond (Score:4, Funny)

    by jmenon ( 576558 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:46PM (#14683881) Homepage
    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."

  • Who started the red cross? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UPAAntilles ( 693635 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:52PM (#14684305)
    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.

  • Simulated world looking less real every day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @12:23AM (#14685203) Journal
    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.

  • Red Cross stole their logo... (Score:3, Informative)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:34AM (#14685462)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close