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

221–230 of 253 posts

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

#221

Post by M2Ys4U »

jldugger wrote: post #121
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…

>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.

FWIW, first aid kits in the UK almost exclusively use that symbol.

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

#222

Post by pmyteh »

alkonaut wrote: post #173
chomp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone But didn’t that ship sail a century ago? Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real w…

That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits, blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green crosses at pharmacies...

Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.

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

#223

Post by pvaldes »

lvs wrote: post #141
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…

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic. Both are war crimes.

And the law will fall on offenders with the force of ten eider feather pillows

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

#224

Post by jhgb »

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…

> Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime.

Well, that settles it. Any games depicting red crosses should be patched to check if the player is shooting at vehicles or people marked with a red cross in the game, and if so, report him to the nearest police unit for an arrest.

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

#225

Post by jhgb »

bingidingi wrote: post #170
tyingq wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but going back up to the top, the Red Cross seems to be unhappy with in-game depictions of this reality. Edit: Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the Red Cross was complaining about military ambulances, hospital ships, and so on, depicted in games. In addition to less realistic uses.

Because it's used generally as "health" and not "protected health worker" in video games. I suspect the red cross would not take issue with a game using the red cross to depict untargatable aid workers.

But they're not "untargetable". Laws of physics say so.

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

#226

Post by jacknews »

I think there comes a point when a 'trademark' is so generic, and in common use, that it should no longer be 'owned'.

In my mind, the red cross symbol has become a universal symbol for 'medical service or supplies', and not just for this one organization.

Perhaps they should change their logo. Or just be content that they 'own' one of the most recognizable symbols in history.

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

#228

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jacknews wrote: post #226

I think there comes a point when a 'trademark' is so generic, and in common use, that it should no longer be 'owned'. In my mind, the red cross symbol has become a universal symbol for 'medical service or supplies', and not just for this one organization. Perhaps they should change their logo. Or just be content that they 'own' one of the most recognizable symbols in history.

We call it "kleenex", no matter what the brand actually is. Kleenex has become generic. And yet, if I were to try to sell some off-brand tissues with the name "Kleenex", I'd get sued, and I would lose, and rightly so. The word has become generic, but that doesn't mean that the trademark is (or should be) no longer owned.

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

#229

Post by quasarj »

crooked-v wrote: post #68
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?

> What does misuse particularly mean here? Use by organizations other than the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The point is to strictly maintain the neutrality of the symbol in wartime and similar situations, as distinct from merely indicating (for example) an army medic of a particular country. If it ends up broadly used just to indicate 'first aid', that purpose is lost.

So, if the Red Cross (organization) is represented in a game, using their symbol is "abuse"? Would it not, rather, actually further their cause; assuming reverence is given in the game as it would be IRL?

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

#230

Post by tyingq »

bingidingi wrote: post #180
tyingq wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, some actual US military first aid kits have a red cross on them...here's one I've seen in real life: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5435/1460/products/1a...

This falls under the appropriate case as defined under the Geneva Conventions, because these would be used by people administering aid in armed conflict.

Yes, but then depicting a military first aid kit in a game, as it appears in real life...is somewhat normal. At least to me. That's what you see on TV and movies.

And, FWIW, those first aid kits in big green plastic boxes are mostly used by regular soldiers. The medics have different kits in backpack looking containers called an M-9.

Post reply on HN