Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

redcross.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 253 posts

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#121

Post by jldugger »

krtkush wrote: post #19

What does misuse particularly mean here? I couldn't gather that. Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse? Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?

>Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse?

The important thing about the Red Cross and its brand is that they are neutral. The Genova convention declared they get a special marker, and a rule against harming them in wartime. A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection the rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross. Nor would some random soldier carrying a J&J first aid kit get any protection. In particular the risk is that the more common that symbol is, the less distinctive it is, a particularly troublesome effect during armed conflict where decisions about where to point a rifle and whether to pull a trigger are being made rapidly.

> Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?

A random hospital definitely cannot, without permission (and presumably, some covenants). And it'd definitely not be an enforceable trademark on their end so not a smart branding move anyways. It's usually not a huge deal -- in the US the hospital sign is blue with a big H. In video games you can just use red background with a white plus (but thats like, the swiss flag) Or in the case of TF2, a red (or blue) cross on a yellow circle.

It would likely help their cause if there were an alternative public domain recognized symbol. The ISO standard is apparently White cross on green background: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:E003 but pretty much nobody knows that.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#122

Post by mrmuagi »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #73
m1117 wrote: post #7

Games 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.

Blame it all you want, there's something to be said when the human brain can extract joy from virtual people getting the rough end of it. It's almost like blame shifting the origin of the internal emotions to external pixels makes the vision humans are something other than just evolutionary maladjusted techno-primates and of godly origin and that-thar-pixels is the work of satan and couldn't be otherwise.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#123

Post by throwaway894345 »

w0de0 wrote: post #55
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> 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…

“[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities. [Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed.]” …

You're just restating the problem. I don't understand how "Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed" follows from "[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities."

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#124

Post by addicted »

Vaslo wrote: post #109
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.

Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games.

They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#125

Post by yellow_lead »

jp57 wrote: post #80
yellow_lead wrote: post #45

> 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.

Yeah, I meant Kleenex. There are more examples here. Some of these still hold protected status as you mentioned.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-nam...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#126

Post by forkLding »

This might be also a part of all this, where Johnson & Johnson fought in court with the American Red Cross over the Red Cross emblem on American Red Cross products: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0005.h...

https://www.jnj.com/our-company/youre-doing-what

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnsonandjohnson-redcros...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#127

Post by jldugger »

yellow_lead wrote: post #120
sandworm101 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect people and have them withdraw your coun…

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.

> but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc.

Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#128

Post by forkLding »

rurounijones wrote: post #5

Is anyone aware of some event that kicked off this posting? Has a particular game misused the symbol badly? It all makes sense but I am not sure if it has been submitted in response to some recent egregious misuse.

Might not be a game but be from this: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0005.h... and then seeing the widespread usage of red cross symbolism in video games

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#129

Post by crooked-v »

Havoc wrote: post #91

I don't quite get the issue? If anything it ensures every kid recognises it & associates it with medical treatment

The issue is that associating it with just medical treatment is wrong. It's the symbol of an organization that's internationally recognized as neutral in wartime, and that's the important part.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#130

Post by johncolanduoni »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #105
Justsignedup wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid that, it’s a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public domain than something more distinctive.

If they do that and all the ambulances, hospitals etc. change to the new symbol, that symbol will have the same problem in a few decades because it will be similarly omnipresent. Considering it’ll probably take about as long for all the equipment and buildings to relabel, it doesn’t seem like a practical solution.
Post reply on HN