I wonder if any actual harm is done (or has been done) to the brand (or anything/anyone else for that matter) by including the red cross in video games. If anything, it's probably a free ad.
It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
71–80 of 253 posts
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#72> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…
I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.
This is an extraordinary naive comment.
Claim is stronger than insinuate.
claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due
insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly
Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#73Games is the mirror of the real world. Also, games are art. You can't judge GTA for bringing people joy of killing virtual people.
You can certainly judge GTA for that.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#74> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…
Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to natural disasters. But it seems they feel they’re increasingly responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That’s at least my interpretation. (Edited to clarify timeframe)
This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some time. Disaster relief and public health came along much later.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many first person shooters and their health power-ups. Also, my googling found this: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/17/indie-games-develope...
I can't see how that detracts from the symbol - if anything, it makes it clearer what it represents. If there was a game with Nazis carrying red crosses instead of swastikas or something, this post might make sense, but it just seems unreasonable to me.
The point is to strictly maintain the symbol as indicating members of the internationally neutral Red Cross and Red Crescent, not just "healing". If a war happens and a bunch of people on either side are using the red cross symbol to indicate medics, then members of the actual Red Cross are at risk of being accidentally targeted along with them.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#76The green cross is generally the recommended alternative. Note that this isn't normal copyright, the red cross is protected under the Geneva Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...
A green cross definitely means marijuana dispensary to my eyes. Is it actually used elsewhere?
There's a pharmaceutical company in Korea that's literally called "Green Cross". (Looks like they recently changed their logo to... a rainbow cross! While keeping the name. Not sure why they thought it would be a good idea...)
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#77> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…
IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…
Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#78[deleted]
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#79[dead]
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#80> Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use a red Greek cross4 on a white field, with the only exception being that any user of such an emblem prior to 1905 would continue to have the right to use the emblem. Registrations owned by Johnson & Johnson for red Greek crosses date from 190…
> In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way of "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it.
Was "tissue" ever a trademark? Did you mean "Kleenex"?
FWIW, "Kleenex", "Coke", and "Google", all still have their protected status. "Aspirin" was once a trademark (of Bayer?), but is no longer.