231–240 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To complicate things one further layer down, what about games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is somewhat common in real life.
DOOM's health pickups have had the red cross on them, it was released in 1994. DOOM was a widespread cultural phenomenon, at least in the US. Did the Red Cross try to address this at all?
> 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness and education. A green cross would confuse people.
> such as a scene involving army medics This is actually a completely inappropriate scenario. The point of the Red Cross symbol is that it indicates an internationally neutral organization that is very specifically not associated with any country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness and education. A green cross would confuse people.
You hit the nail on the head! Army medics != Red cross, and that's a big difference. If a red cross is taken to mean just army medics, they might be considered to be "just" the enemy's medics, a "legitimate" target for some, unlike the Red Cross who are neutral and help everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“[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."
2. The Red Cross helps these people.
3. Their symbol is a tool which improves Red Cross's ability to help.
4. Misuse or casual use of the symbol dilutes its utility.
5. Therefore, please cease its casual use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use and which they have no control over. If that happens then it completely undermines its purpose and significance in disaster or humanitarian situations.
It's not the same legally as an ordinary trademark, so I don't think that's their exact motivation. I think the idea is that they want everyone to know about believe that the emblem is only used for Red Cross activities and therefore that it's bad, and even a war crime, to attack those displaying it in a conflict environment. If people have seen it coming up in other contexts, that intuition or association might be w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
What other symbol would you use for medicine/medical? Just look at any first-aid box, and it has a red cross. Even nurse dress-up costumes.
Of course if I tried to start an NGO using the symbol, I would rightly be sued. But using it generically, in games for med-paks or whatever, etc, seems fine to me.