It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by jagrsw » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #135

addicted wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games. They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.

Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games or any other kind of media have contributed to any of these fatalities?

I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.) undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which are contributing to confusion about those signs should share some part of the blame, instinctively proportionally to their public influence. I think I can live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far.

It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper education, maybe missing classes during military training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games, maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do at least something about each of those (if possible).

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

#202

Post by unanswered » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #167

dfdz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this quotation best summarizes the article "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use" The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color. I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.

Donating to the red cross is downright evil already. This is the same organization which, in the US at least, will not take blood from gay cis men who sleep with men, even though it's happy to take blood from straight trans women who sleep with men — biologically identical acts, with the only difference being sexual orientation.

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

#203

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

theodric wrote: post #196

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…

I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...

What's hilarious about it?

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

#204

Post by bingidingi » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #181

bingidingi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Where do you get this confidence that there's no confusion with the green cross? The continents of Europe, Africa, Australia... I've also seen it used in China but I'm not as familiar with Asia because I haven't lived there. I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.

People have already replied to you to let you know that various major European countries use the green cross to refer to a generic pharmacy. You already acknowledge this elsewhere, and you've also already acknowledged that there's special meaning to the red cross as opposed to merely referring to pharmacies. I don't know what you're doing excluding Asia or the USA either, while saying > A green cross would confuse no…

Using the green cross for a pharmacy supports the suggested use as a generic symbol for health...

I didn't exclude Asia, I stated that my experience there is more limited than the continents I listed. The US isn't a reliable authority on any international standards.

If you started up a new video game and the health packs had green crosses instead of red ones, would you be confused?

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

#205

Post by shreyshnaccount » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

Justsignedup wrote: post #54

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…

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…

And the military must receive training for it. If a soldier "throws a grenade" at a red cross, it's lack of training, not video games.

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

#206

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #187

throwaway894345 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited". > And how would you ever prove such a thing? Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.

The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are specifically mentioned in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime. There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any of…

I don't dispute that the RC logo is special per international law; I don't see what that has to do with anything here. I also don't object to "the Red Cross wants to protect its trademark"; I only object to the implication that appropriation of the RC logo in the media poses any kind of threat to RC personnel.

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

#207

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #155

crooked-v wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an accurate representation of real life In real life, the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a specific international organization well-known for their neutrality in armed conflict. Portraying it as just meaning 'healing' takes away from the power of that neutrality.

>the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a specific international It's not though. Lots of military ambulances, from many countries, not associated with the Red Cross, have a red cross on them. One example, there are many more: https://www.google.com/search?q=british+military+ambulance&t...

"Countries around the world protect the red cross emblem and limit its use to official Red Cross organizations and programs, as well as the medical services of their armed forces. In the United States, only the American Red Cross and the medical corps of the Armed Forces are permitted by law to use the red cross emblem. Some U.S. companies were granted an exception that were already using the emblem before 1906. Use of the red cross emblem by anyone else is not only prohibited, but also unlawful in the United States and around the world." (https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/news/2020/...)

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

#208

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

pugworthy wrote: post #182

throwaway894345 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?

I believe that's somewhat the point of the second sentence quoted earlier. They are saying they've got people dying while serving with the Red Cross - and perhaps an implication is that dilution of the symbol is one cause. Irrespective they are asking to be taken seriously - it's not Kleenex™ asking to not to use kleenex generically.

I don't have a problem with people protecting their trademarks, whether Kleenex or RC. I just didn't think they were going to make the "trademark violations kill" argument. Kind of puts the MPAA's "You wouldn't steal a car..." marketing into perspective.

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

#209

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #97

tyingq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the example of a first aid kit with a red cross. But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate representation of real life, within the media itself seems...normal. I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of first aid kits…

I don't think games are very good about doing an accurate representation there. They mostly seem to slap a red cross on anything "healing" related, like not-non-combatant military medics (Starcraft medics and medivacs come to mind, which the game specifically expects you to fire at).

Holy shit. They're medics, they're showing a red cross, and you're supposed to shoot at them. (https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Medic)

Oy.

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

#210

Post by tialaramex » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #187

throwaway894345 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited". > And how would you ever prove such a thing? Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.

The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are specifically mentioned in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime. There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any of…

Right. There are several less well known protective marks, all red symbols on a white background. There's a red crescent, and a red crystal (an uncontroversial geometric shape which conveniently is also hollow so you can put some other symbol in there if that's important to you) and historically a red lion with sun.

The purpose of these symbols is to unambiguously identify protected vehicles, protected buildings, protected people.

It's true that in some countries people slap red crosses (in particular) on stuff that shouldn't have them and doesn't need them. But that doesn't make it a good idea. In a video game in particular you could use any symbol and players would soon get the idea. How long do you think it takes Mario players to realise that one of the mushrooms makes Mario bigger, while a different one is an extra life?