Red Cross condemns use of emblem in video games

    Skjalg put it nicely, It's a symbol more than it is a logo representing an organisation.

    Also, someone on slashdot asked what harm is it doing? It's always something positive in games, health, medkits etc. , not killing and blood. If anything it's teaching kids that the symbol means you can get help and first aid when you see it.

    After reading something:

    Did I read this right? Did that just say that it isn't one corporation's logo, but rather a symbol used under the Geneva Conventions to show for first aid and other medical related shit. Basically, having a medic class in a war game with a cross that happens to be red would be doing what the Geneva Conventions quote demonstrates, and isn't infringing on International Committee of the Red Cross's (lack of) ownership of it.

    Quote from JynxDaddy

    Also, someone on slashdot asked what harm is it doing? It's always something positive in games, health, medkits etc. , not killing and blood. If anything it's teaching kids that the symbol means you can get help and first aid when you see it.

    Except for, back in the tfc days, when players would go medic only for speed, self healing, concjumping, and never (or rarely) healing teammates

    I think they can't stop individual or independent organizations or companies using the red cross, it's like a country making the use of their flag illegal, especially when the use is not producing any harm to the flag or symbol itself.

    And the Red Cross emblem is the swiss flag with negative colors, if you get in trouble with the RC, you can just say that it's not red cross, it's inverse swiss flag

    Quote from Kosmo

    I think they can't stop individual or independent organizations or companies using the red cross, it's like a country making the use of their flag illegal, especially when the use is not producing any harm to the flag or symbol itself.

    In the UK last world cup, might have been euro cup or something for football (or to USA peeps "soccer") they banned taxi drivers having little english flags on. Saying that it was racist because over half the population are "multicultural", thats what I call retarded.

    Adding to that, the English flag is a red cross on a white background....

    Quote from Gaz

    In the UK last world cup, might have been euro cup or something for football (or to USA peeps "soccer") they banned taxi drivers having little english flags on. Saying that it was racist because over half the population are "multicultural", thats what I call retarded.

    Adding to that, the English flag is a red cross on a white background....

    Wow... that IS rather retard, why the hell would they ban people having their own flag in their own country.

    From a strictly legal standpoint, the case has some merit to it. The Geneva Conventionis binding international law, and if it says the member nations have agreed to protect misuse of the logo, then they have the right to. There are some caveats.

    First off, the Geneva Convention hasn't really been used as precedent in non-military cases, so it will be interesting to see how a judge applies it to a business case. My guess is the judge will stand by it for fear of casting any legal doubt upon the Geneva Convention as a whole. You don't want to be the judge taht gives every third world dictator the ability to say the Geneva convention has been struck down in court.

    Secondly, there seems to be a high probability that game companies could come up with a lot of prior art (evidence that the symbol was used before it was declared to be used under only certain circumstances). All it takes is one example (the English flag for instance), that that casts doubts on the merit of the infringement. It doesn't completely invalidate it, but it puts fair-use back on the table. However, this is all dependent on which court system they go through. US and EU patent law is very different.

    The one arguement that could probably save most developers in court is that the defense of the Red Cross logo has been lacking for years. Part of copyright law demands that you actually defend against improper use. That's why you usually get sued when you use somebody else's stuff (unless you're eBaum). But courts have pretty much ruled that if you stop defending your stuff, it pretty much becomes fair game until you start defending again. This would basicaly mean that from hear on out, games can't use it, but all existing games are pretty much free from liability.

    All in all, the Red Cross looks on really sturdy legal ground, and I don't think any developer or publisher will really go to the mat over this because it would cost a fortune in court to fight the Red Cross, plus he PR would look really bad. Instead, you'll see red backgrounds and whtie crosses, hearts, needles, bones, or any number of other acceptible iconography.

    Shack had a good Q&A on the subject... It's not as completely wacko as it initially sounds, and they're concerned about its use in more than just games (including unauthorized use on first aid kits and such).

    http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/02 ... dcross_1.x

    Daano, that comment about medics is covered, too - medics wear them under the Geneva convention as a representation of the red cross, with the specific logo selected by whatever nation they represent.

    For Quake, I assume id was one of the TX developers approached already, as we did the very much public domain (like thousands of years old public domain) caduceus. I would just hope for a game like Brothers in Arms there could be a common ground reached respecting that the depiction in the game is representative of those who really wear the emblem.

    When i was working on Shellshock we had the red cresent calling us already before we released any screenshot or product in general just to warn us to not try it or face a law suit. They are a bit itchy

    They already call you even if you havent released anything yet

    Isnt slightly modifying the cross ok ?

    It would be a different thing then afterall..

    Quote from Fletch

    From a strictly legal standpoint, the case has some merit to it. The Geneva Conventionis binding international law, and if it says the member nations have agreed to protect misuse of the logo, then they have the right to. There are some caveats.

    But in the games, the symbol is used as stated,

    * facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members

    okay, hospitals... done.

    * armed forces medical personnel and equipment;

    okay, medic class... done.

    * military chaplains

    dont know about that one...

    so it's not misuse if its used in games the same way as it is in real life.

    http://www.jmurrayinc1944.com/www/photo ... panels.jpg

    http://www.blizzard.com/images/broodwar ... edside.jpg

    http://joy.poosan.net/lycos/pcgame/scre ... /medic.jpg

    all the same usage.

    I think its more of a problem to them that the symbol is associated to violence in a lot of games while it should be a neutral and save symbol

    For example if you see a guy with a red cross you normally dont shoot him as he wont harm you but tries to help people

    If that guy with a red cross would suddenly get huge guns and starting to kill all enemies around him however you create a situation where medics are shot on sight just in case off

    And thats what happens in games, doing that is strictly forbidden

    Same type of thing as taking 20 ambulances in a real life war and hiding 100 elite forces in their backs and then drive the ambulances to the enemy

    Thats not done because it endangers all the medics and healthcare personels safety

    Quote

    Same type of thing as taking 20 ambulances in a real life war and hiding 100 elite forces in their backs and then drive the ambulances to the enemy

    ...it's a good plan though

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login