> It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us
The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official communication from the Canadian Red Cross group.
I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more recently. I guess people feel like they would speak the sentence with a pause after the conjunction and therefore the comma goes there in writing.
Well, parent comment mentioned Mac, so the correct answer is Option, Shift, and - (hyphen). There are many other characters that Macs can type with the Option key.
>which otherwise has basically the same grammar as English
German and English have similar grammar but they are very far from being the same. Particular here with commas. Clauses in German are almost always marked with commas. English uses the comma much more sparingly.
Yes, it's always odd to me to see native German speakers putting a comma before "that" in indirect discourse in English (like "ich glaube, dass dieser Satz richtig ist" -> *"I believe, that this sentence is correct").
In English there's also a difference in comma usage with restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses (restrictive relative clauses, which indicate which specific entity is referred to as opposed to others, don't use commas, while nonrestrictive relative clauses, which merely add additional information, do), but I seem to remember that native German speakers will commonly write both with commas.
*The person, who was here yesterday, has come back.
Conversely, it's sometimes hard for me to remember to use that comma in German. I want to write something like *"sie sagt dass man hier kein Komma braucht".
It would not be correct in German either (source: Native speaker, went to Grammar School).
This is just another instance of North Americans (I haven't really seen this in British English speakers) placing their commata not at the boundaries between clauses/phrases, but where they pause when they read the sentence out loud. You may argue with descriptivism -- that the grammatical rules have changed and this is the new normal -- but placing a comma like this has the probably unintentional effect that reading the sentence out loud now causes you to pause in yet a different place.
I can't find any evidence of that being true. In this article[1] for example, all the examples either have the comma before the "aber" or none at all. I can't find any example anywhere where a comma after the "aber" would be correct nor can I think of one myself.
I also wouldn't say that German has "otherwise the same grammar as English". (Or in wrong German: "Ich auch würde nicht sagen dass Deutsch hat ansonsten das gleich Grammatik wie Englisch" - even if we're just talking about comma rules, the German version should have a comma before the "that/dass").
OT but it reminds me of that part in Borat where he's learning about not-jokes, and he says "This suit is black not," without any pause. Similarly odd sort of rhythm to the first part of the sentence before the comma.
Oh my goodness. I didn't even see that, probably because my brain regards it as impossible - it's the punctuation equivalent of the gorilla walking across the basketball court.
Boycott this retarded organization. They're more concerned with defending their little symbol than helping those in need. The red cross was literally equivalent to "health" and that's why health kits that instantly healed you had this symbol on it. Way to destroy a brand. Stop terrorizing video game producers and focus on your mission again, morons.
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.
I wondered exactly this, because to this day I've only ever seen the red cross used for its intended meaning. It is absolutely recognizable for this purpose, and in those use cases. There were cases of misuse, but they were some time ago and already have been dealt with.
I used to have a toy ambulance that had the red cross logo on it. They probably should post a policy on what they consider to be acceptable play, and what is not. This would also impact a lot of movies and cartoons.
I think if used for intended meaning in a shooting game, any player wearing or showing the Red Cross would be a third team who's role is to heal everyone.
Which would actually be an interesting game idea...
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.
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 weakened.
This seems like a very petty problem to focus on in "an increasingly uncertain world".
I think establishing a link between people making/playing video games and people who actually abuse the red cross symbol causing actual casualties is just plain counterproductive.
Until they back that connection with actual data, I stand unmoved by their statement.
They gave little to no evidence that video games and other uses of the red cross symbol are responsible for those deaths; what they did is assert the importance of their mission and the risk in diluiting the meaning of the logo.
Personally I found that part to be badly written; but it is still reasonable position.
> 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 appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.
EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.
It's not an insinuation of anything, they're trying to emphasize the gravity of what they do to discourage casual use of the symbol. Their intention is in the headline.
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.
Putting those two sentences together is how you insuate such a thing.
EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example. Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.
[Claiming/insinuating] that using the Red Cross as a generic logo dilutes its symbolism, which could potentially lead to deaths is clearly a weaker statement than [claiming/insinuating] that its use in video games has caused specific deaths.
It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible, statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete incident.
No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths. Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.
> 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 world? That at least makes some sense.
I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.
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.
Now that you mention it the same is what I saw: equipment had the cross on green while staff and vehicles used the white cross on a red circular bottom. I thought the choice was esthetic/camouflage but it’s the Geneva convention at work.
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.
Hiatorically, the Red Cross was foundes in response to the suffering caused by the Crimean War in the 1860s and their mission is to help people who get caught in armed comflicts. The symbol is protected by international law as a sign of medical facilities and medical personal who may not be attacked. Using the red cross for any other purspose is considered abusive and is formally a war crime. It may sound absurd, but keeping the narrow and important meaning of the symbol intact saves lives.
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.
Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other first responders are public servants--as I do--then you should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to other first responders). Easily the best organization I have ever known or worked for.
Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.
Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
> Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.
I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.
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.
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 they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way.
If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone regardless of the side they came in with.
We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
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.
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).
The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises.
Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.
> 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 them involve "appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have good reason to defend those logos.
"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited."
(The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
They are not proposing a 1:1 relationship between use in games and medics being killed. That's not really how the meaning of symbols change. They are saying that using the medical symbol for game or media elements who are appropriate targets dilutes the clarity of the symbol. I think the argument is pretty straightforward and I'm not sure how one would "document" a symbolic dilution beyond suggesting that it will happen.
People do in fact generally (but not always) respect the neutrality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, including in current conflicts between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan, where they've had access to prisoners from both sides and run landmine injury rehabilitation centers.
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 don't think that's likely to be the case. A red cross has already become established a generic symbol for medical things. It is unlikely that would change if the Red Cross organization changed its logo.
> 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 they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way.
The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses.
The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their patients and under no circumstances are they to directly engage in offensive military operations.
It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively
Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.
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.
Was anybody prosecuted by the infamous 2007 attack to an ambulance in Baghdad shown by Wikileaks, (oh, yes... Manning of course. Silly me. I almost forgot)
Was anybody jailed for the men and woman and children burnt alive by the "strictly forbidden under international laws" white phosphorus in Fallujah? noope
Were the systematic bombing of hospitals and civil buildings in Gaza, Pakistan or Syria investigated?
Was somebody prosecuted by what they did to Omran Daqneesh and his family?.
Or by the annexation of Crimea?
I could spent the next hour enumerating cases of war crimes written in flashing neon letters, solved with a path in the shoulder to the criminals. Is a fact that war crimes go often unpunished when commit by "the good guys".
“[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."
No, I don't see they claiming that the use in games caused these deaths. What I think they are claiming is that it is necessary to protect the symbol such that when we see it, we know that we really are dealing with the Red Cross, not with some other random thing related to medicine. And that if the symbol becames banalized, this takes away the protection that the symbol should bring to them.
I understand this, but, perhaps in the long term they should consider using a more complex symbol, and including the Red Cross name in it. It is much more difficult to protect a symbol when it is so generic and simple to draw it.
Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones.
> Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones.
Wow that's a lot of snark.
1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't quote it all because that's not what quotes are for. Note that the site guidelines advise against accusations of not reading TFA.
2. "as such are becoming a target in conflict zones." So basically the absurd "videogames thus killings" argument that I addressed in my original post?
3. I got a couple dozen upvotes in a few minutes, so I'm not the only one confused by this.
The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death.
"Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying.
They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want the red cross to be synonymous with health, because it's much more specific than that.
> The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification.
I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a better likely meaning".
But apparently there are a lot of people who think the "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support their position with examples.
If I start putting the toilet symbol on doors without toilets behind them, eventually you're going to stop expecting toilets behind the door. You don't need an example to know that.
This also isn't about trademark, the red cross is outlined in the Geneva Conventions as a symbol with a specific meaning. That meaning is specific because it's meant to protect aid workers as neutral parties in conflict.
> If I start putting the toilet symbol on doors without toilets behind them, eventually you're going to stop expecting toilets behind the door. You don't need an example to know that.
Good grief. Can you think of a reason why your analogy about changing how a symbol is used in real life might not apply to a debate about how symbols are used in fiction?
Let me offer up an analogy that isn't completely and obviously broken:
If you watch enough Doctor Who, does it make you believe that real life police boxes are actually camouflaged time machines?
It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time.
The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games, is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried about confusion.
There's additional issue with the fact that video games are very common, but warzones and disaster areas less so. So it's quite possible the fictional association, if overused, could redefine the real-life usage for many people. We already see some of this in the comment section... many people don't understand the difference between "health" as a concept and the red cross as an element protected by international law.
It seems reasonable to try and claw that meaning back.
> It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time.
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that I kind of expect ridiculous moral panics from conservative parents not so much from the official communications arm of one of the largest NGOs in the world. Absent any actual evidence I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's important to us that it's not diluted."
They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid workers)... it seems like the method of applying this mostly consists of asking nicely.
I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting the RC are engaging in moral panic, but that their reasoning (the absurd proposed causal relationship and complete and utter lack of evidence) resembles a particular phenomenon which happened to be a moral panic.
What we say doesn't matter. What the Red Cross says doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the Red Cross and any use by anyone else is completely subject to their permission.
This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that should be up for constitutional debate.
The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and new Red Crystal are specific logos (like all trademarked logos), with the additional aspect that they are recognized in international laws, including the Geneva Conventions. Vehicles, for example, carrying the Red Cross logos are not supposed to be fired upon (https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066), and no other vehicles are supposed to display the Red Cross logos.
If you use the IBM logo or the ATT death star in an unauthorized fashion, you get a nastygram from IBM or ATT because you are diluting their brand. Diluting the brand of the Red Cross means that there is an increased likelihood of "mistakes", and a mistake in a combat zone is a bad thing.
In conflict zones, the red cross symbol has often protected them from being a target. It might have been one of the primary meanings and uses of the symbol.
Could they mean, with those two sentences, that having the red cross be used, in for example, video games, for other meanings (like health pack or whatever) waters down that original important meaning of the symbol as the Red Cross organisation identity?
I’m just speculating, but could it be that a combatant in war seeing a red cross previously though “that’s the Red Cross” while they today might, more often than before, just think: “that’s medics”?
>> 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 ...
Lots of their people are getting killed; thus the protection provided by the emblem is very important to them.
I am an American with a life long love affair with Canada. I follow Canadian news and media pretty closely.
Claims like these are what I read about all the time in Canada. As an American, to me their culture has moved to a very strange place as far as worry and blame.
The red cross had issues in the past with the symbols. Muslims didn't wanted to be treated for them (seeing the cross as a symbol for christians), so they needed to create the 'Red crescent' symbol exclusively for Muslims. But then jews, hindi and asians felt excluded also, so a third symbol was necessary, the red crystal, that aim to represent humanitary work without being assimilated to one of the bands in conflict. The red crystal is used in delicate cases to not upset anybody.
The red cross should be named now the red crystal, to hide that it was created in an European context, by a christian, and also that is just the Switzerland flag with inverted colors (he was from Geneva).
Is a good example of how politics and ideology can spoil anything.
I am still waiting for a hackernewsque article explaining why French pharmarcy have the blinking green crosses showing the time and temperature and often a whole complicated LED show.
Yes, it's used in many places. It's very commonly used to indicate pharmacies throughout Europe. I've also seen it used in the US on various medical supplies and defibrillator stations.
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...)
I would assume that was for Pride Month (June). Many companies adopt a rainbow flag representing LGBTQ for that month. If so, they've probably gone back to the old one by now.
I always saw it as green 'plus signs', as in your health (or hit points) are increasing.
I've literally used them when developing a video game before, and that's what I was thinking as I implemented them.
I've also used the red cross when making a game before without even thinking about a possible trademark or protection, it was already a generic symbol to me. Come to think of it, I just used it again in the art for a board game I was making. I guess I should change it, but I'm not sure to what (I guess a green cross?).
In Mexico there are a group of public state owned hospitals with the "green cross". It is the place where they take you when you get in an accident and don't have anywhere else to go. There's also the red cross, but that's the same as the one in the article.
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.
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 one.
And then following up with
> I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
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?
It's objectively true. The US ignores many widely accepted international standards, and in multiple cases stands alone in doing so. It's not the defacto world view and shouldn't be treated as such.
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 seem to do. Though perhaps the Swiss wouldn't be thrilled. Maybe a white cross in a red circle?
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).
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.
These are medical units that fall under the protections of the red cross as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
"Under the Geneva Conventions, the three distinctive emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red crystal are intended to identify and protect medical and relief workers, military and civilian medical facilities, mobile units and hospital ships during armed conflict."
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.
"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/...)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
>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.
The Halo series quietly switched from a red cross to a red H to come into compliance (as the international Red Cross didn't gel their position on the symbol's use in videogames clearly until after the first game was released).
> 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.
The protective use of the Red Cross, is subject to the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, and only those rules. What any particular Red Cross organization feels is completely irrelevant. These rules allow use by one side of the conflict's own medics, among other things. There is no treating both sides rule or anything like that.
Protective use of the symbol in an inappropriate context is a war crime. As is ignoring the symbol and firing upon a protected facility.
The Geneva conventions also allow indicative use of the symbols by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organizations. It is only supposed to be used by those organizations in this indicative sense, but it is not viewed as a war crime when this is violated.
Using the symbol in a game as a generic symbol for healing or medics is wrong. Use of the the symbol in the protective fashion in video games is arguably fine, as long as the game also treats ignoring the symbol as a war crime. I'm not sure I've ever seen a game where the player gets court marshaled if they fire upon an enemy's medics wearing the red cross symbol though, which is a real problem, and dilutes the meaning of the symbol.
One weird thing here is that for example, the American Red cross licenses the use of the symbol for purposes like first aid kits very much like those found in video games. This is in addition to the well known Johnson and Johnson trademark allowing them to use it on their first aid kits too.
The First Geneva convention article 39 allows the military to order that the symbol be on equipment used by in battle are supposed to have the symbol on it, so they would very much could carry first aid kits with a red cross on it.
>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.
I intended this as more of a jab at how asinine the Red Cross's claims are rather than Apple's, I'm a little surprised this post got dogpiled as hard as it did
There are plenty of non-Red Cross alternative symbols that can be used to more generically indicate 'healing'. The Red Cross and Red Crescent specifically are meant to be used by members of that organization, who are internationally recognized as being neutral parties in wartime.
To the extent that the symbol is used for regaining health and being treated for injuries in games, I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission.
That being said, if the symbol was being used as the emblem of an evil army or crime syndicate in a game, I could understand them having a problem with it, however.
> I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission
Part of the point of the symbol is to indicate the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, specifically, which keeps to strict neutrality in wartime. If it starts getting used willy-nilly it puts their members at greater risk because they are no longer clearly delineated from the medical services or army medics of specific countries.
Learning how to work with 3d gaming tools/libraries now, just so I can create a simulator where you kill a bunch of defenseless Red Cross workers (all wearing the symbol of course) in a crowded office building.
> 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 1906 and claim first use dates of 1898, and thus its right to use those marks were grandfathered based on the American Red Cross Charter Act. J&J continues using similar trademarks today...
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.
> 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.
>> 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 country from the Geneva Conventions. I doubt any party anywhere would ever adopt such a platform.
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.
And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not allowed to be armed, or even armored. A vehicle with that symbol must have absolutely no other use than medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.
"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy.
"As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel with small arms to defend themselves or their patients and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are escorted by military personnel or such personnel are present or if the medical personnel are in possession of small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and not yet handed over to the proper service.
"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
Not sure about armor, although the general statement seems to be they would only lose their protected status if they commit specific actions.
But it isn't a creative work. It is an adopted symbol more akin to a national flag or religious structure. The laws that protect it from violence trump things like freedom of speech. Use of it in a game, a situation where people can simulate the misuse of that symbol, reduce its realworld significance.
Prison Architect actually received a notice about this. Their answer was very simple: replace the red cross with a green one. There is no reason other games cannot also make this very minor concession to the Geneva Conventions. It is the law.
Look to TV shows. It is very very rare to see an actual red cross. Ambulances on shows like Scrubs don't use them. Film/TV people know to respect that symbol and only use it in very specific scenarios. MASH used it extensively, but then too very carefully.
not really. they've got a zero tolerance approach to the appropriation of their symbol because the mission is so important and from their perspective it is all downside risk to them. they don't care about your video game, all they care about is misuse of their symbol.
and they're protected by the geneva convention and have all the weight of law behind them.
if they ask you to stop using their symbol its very simple and you need to stop.
the clarity of the rule means that they don't need to debate which usage is or isn't sufficient to produce the effects, it all simply needs to be removed and then they're assured it is not being diluted.
that is actually a perfectly reasonable perspective.
the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective arguments over the magnitude of the harm being done by the particular violation is a feature, not a bug.
I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police their “trademark” instead of their primary mission is a massive waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is inherently common because the main place the average person sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.
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 is not surprising that such absurd request comes from the local branch of a highly litigious capitalist country. I could not imagine seeing the Serbian Red Cross (change the country at your taste) stating such a ridiculous thing. This is like forbidding games to use the SOS distress signal, or the UN logo.
The red cross sign in games/toys/films is a GOOD thing, it creates awareness.
There are down votes to comments suggesting that it is "pure rent seeking".
And I see why, people think that there is no obvious financial interest for them.
But think again deeper about that, they are often selling their own brand. For example, in a lot of places, they are asking donations exchanging them with red cross stickers that they put on cars.
For some people it is a status symbol to have this sticker on their cars as it is a signal that "they are generous".
And, as said otherwise, the red cross recent history is plagued with waste of money and very bad management.
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.
While I completely for the ideals and efforts of the Red Cross organization, I felt their statement in the article is rather ironic:
"The red cross is a powerful symbol of neutrality, impartiality, humanity and hope. Please help us protect it!"
They have redefined the cross, which to Christians, is the symbol of God's love for us, and the hope of healing and salvation, and therefore the driver for the origination of the organization itself - to be the hands and feet of Christ.
They have stripped it of its original meaning (for laudable purposes btw), and now are concerned when others do the same...
255 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 246 ms ] thread> It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us
The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official communication from the Canadian Red Cross group.
I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more recently. I guess people feel like they would speak the sentence with a pause after the conjunction and therefore the comma goes there in writing.
Also on Windows using WinCompose http://wincompose.info/
If you want to indicate a pause to show how you want it read you can use an ellipses (...).
Yep, that's what I would go with. I can't see a use case for a comma after the "but" in British nor American English.
> I guess people feel like they would speak the sentence with a pause after the conjunction
Even this feels off to me when I read up to the "but" and then pause (as opposed to pausing on the "you").
German and English have similar grammar but they are very far from being the same. Particular here with commas. Clauses in German are almost always marked with commas. English uses the comma much more sparingly.
In English there's also a difference in comma usage with restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses (restrictive relative clauses, which indicate which specific entity is referred to as opposed to others, don't use commas, while nonrestrictive relative clauses, which merely add additional information, do), but I seem to remember that native German speakers will commonly write both with commas.
*The person, who was here yesterday, has come back.
Conversely, it's sometimes hard for me to remember to use that comma in German. I want to write something like *"sie sagt dass man hier kein Komma braucht".
This is just another instance of North Americans (I haven't really seen this in British English speakers) placing their commata not at the boundaries between clauses/phrases, but where they pause when they read the sentence out loud. You may argue with descriptivism -- that the grammatical rules have changed and this is the new normal -- but placing a comma like this has the probably unintentional effect that reading the sentence out loud now causes you to pause in yet a different place.
I also wouldn't say that German has "otherwise the same grammar as English". (Or in wrong German: "Ich auch würde nicht sagen dass Deutsch hat ansonsten das gleich Grammatik wie Englisch" - even if we're just talking about comma rules, the German version should have a comma before the "that/dass").
[1]: http://www.neue-rechtschreibung.net/2012/04/30/kommasetzung-...
> "It may just be a game to you but" Red Cross spokesperson tine said "it means the world to us."
Extreme comma tension now relieved above.
It all makes sense but I am not sure if it has been submitted in response to some recent egregious misuse.
Also, my googling found this: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/17/indie-games-develope...
They do, medical branches of the military are allowed to use the symbols.
I used to have a toy ambulance that had the red cross logo on it. They probably should post a policy on what they consider to be acceptable play, and what is not. This would also impact a lot of movies and cartoons.
Which would actually be an interesting game idea...
https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Medic
Personally I found that part to be badly written; but it is still reasonable position.
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 appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.
EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.
EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example. Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.
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.
It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible, statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete incident.
No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths. Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.
I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes.
I’m trying to improve.
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 world? That at least makes some sense.
I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.
Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.
(Edited to clarify timeframe)
"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.
Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.
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.
The Red Cross symbol is sui generis, it is not a (normal) trademark.
Use of the symbols in peace time is prohibited under Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (except as allowed under that article).
>It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color.
It's protected because it protects medics, the wounded and other vulnerable non-combatants in war. It's a vital humanitarian tool.
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 they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way.
If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone regardless of the side they came in with.
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/
They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
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).
Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.
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.
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 them involve "appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have good reason to defend those logos.
International Humanitarian Law (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home):
"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
"Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited."
(The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)
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?
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.
Irrespective they are asking to be taken seriously - it's not Kleenex™ asking to not to use kleenex generically.
Also, if you are asking for examples in media, they are extremely easy to find. Here's an example from a comic strip commenting on TF2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x100...
Otherwise, the red cross symbol just becomes a huge target painted on you.
The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses.
The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their patients and under no circumstances are they to directly engage in offensive military operations.
It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively
Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.
They've gone back and forth depending on their perception of how well the ICRC is doing its job:
* Withdrawal: https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-s...
* Restoration: http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx
* https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-o...
Was anybody prosecuted by the infamous 2007 attack to an ambulance in Baghdad shown by Wikileaks, (oh, yes... Manning of course. Silly me. I almost forgot)
Was anybody jailed for the men and woman and children burnt alive by the "strictly forbidden under international laws" white phosphorus in Fallujah? noope
Were the systematic bombing of hospitals and civil buildings in Gaza, Pakistan or Syria investigated?
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-hospitals-tar...
Was somebody prosecuted by what they did to Omran Daqneesh and his family?.
Or by the annexation of Crimea?
I could spent the next hour enumerating cases of war crimes written in flashing neon letters, solved with a path in the shoulder to the criminals. Is a fact that war crimes go often unpunished when commit by "the good guys".
…
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.
I understand this, but, perhaps in the long term they should consider using a more complex symbol, and including the Red Cross name in it. It is much more difficult to protect a symbol when it is so generic and simple to draw it.
Wow that's a lot of snark.
1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't quote it all because that's not what quotes are for. Note that the site guidelines advise against accusations of not reading TFA.
2. "as such are becoming a target in conflict zones." So basically the absurd "videogames thus killings" argument that I addressed in my original post?
3. I got a couple dozen upvotes in a few minutes, so I'm not the only one confused by this.
"Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying.
They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want the red cross to be synonymous with health, because it's much more specific than that.
I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a better likely meaning".
But apparently there are a lot of people who think the "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support their position with examples.
This also isn't about trademark, the red cross is outlined in the Geneva Conventions as a symbol with a specific meaning. That meaning is specific because it's meant to protect aid workers as neutral parties in conflict.
Good grief. Can you think of a reason why your analogy about changing how a symbol is used in real life might not apply to a debate about how symbols are used in fiction?
Let me offer up an analogy that isn't completely and obviously broken:
If you watch enough Doctor Who, does it make you believe that real life police boxes are actually camouflaged time machines?
The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games, is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried about confusion.
There's additional issue with the fact that video games are very common, but warzones and disaster areas less so. So it's quite possible the fictional association, if overused, could redefine the real-life usage for many people. We already see some of this in the comment section... many people don't understand the difference between "health" as a concept and the red cross as an element protected by international law.
It seems reasonable to try and claw that meaning back.
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that I kind of expect ridiculous moral panics from conservative parents not so much from the official communications arm of one of the largest NGOs in the world. Absent any actual evidence I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid workers)... it seems like the method of applying this mostly consists of asking nicely.
What we say doesn't matter. What the Red Cross says doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the Red Cross and any use by anyone else is completely subject to their permission.
This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that should be up for constitutional debate.
If you use the IBM logo or the ATT death star in an unauthorized fashion, you get a nastygram from IBM or ATT because you are diluting their brand. Diluting the brand of the Red Cross means that there is an increased likelihood of "mistakes", and a mistake in a combat zone is a bad thing.
In conflict zones, the red cross symbol has often protected them from being a target. It might have been one of the primary meanings and uses of the symbol. Could they mean, with those two sentences, that having the red cross be used, in for example, video games, for other meanings (like health pack or whatever) waters down that original important meaning of the symbol as the Red Cross organisation identity?
I’m just speculating, but could it be that a combatant in war seeing a red cross previously though “that’s the Red Cross” while they today might, more often than before, just think: “that’s medics”?
> I don't understand how these two sentences are related ...
Lots of their people are getting killed; thus the protection provided by the emblem is very important to them.
Claims like these are what I read about all the time in Canada. As an American, to me their culture has moved to a very strange place as far as worry and blame.
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...
But I also spent a lot of my youth in France, where it means exactly that.
The red cross had issues in the past with the symbols. Muslims didn't wanted to be treated for them (seeing the cross as a symbol for christians), so they needed to create the 'Red crescent' symbol exclusively for Muslims. But then jews, hindi and asians felt excluded also, so a third symbol was necessary, the red crystal, that aim to represent humanitary work without being assimilated to one of the bands in conflict. The red crystal is used in delicate cases to not upset anybody.
The red cross should be named now the red crystal, to hide that it was created in an European context, by a christian, and also that is just the Switzerland flag with inverted colors (he was from Geneva).
Is a good example of how politics and ideology can spoil anything.
Okay, it's not exactly a full rainbow, but it has red-orange-yellow-green, which is close enough ...
I've literally used them when developing a video game before, and that's what I was thinking as I implemented them.
I've also used the red cross when making a game before without even thinking about a possible trademark or protection, it was already a generic symbol to me. Come to think of it, I just used it again in the art for a board game I was making. I guess I should change it, but I'm not sure to what (I guess a green cross?).
A green cross would confuse people.
https://www.apteekki.fi/
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.
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 one.
And then following up with
> I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
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?
That is uncalled for.
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 seem to do. Though perhaps the Swiss wouldn't be thrilled. Maybe a white cross in a red circle?
Oy.
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.
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...
"Under the Geneva Conventions, the three distinctive emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red crystal are intended to identify and protect medical and relief workers, military and civilian medical facilities, mobile units and hospital ships during armed conflict."
https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/Inte... (PDF)
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.
I suspect the red cross would not take issue with a game using the red cross to depict untargatable aid workers.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The protective use of the Red Cross, is subject to the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, and only those rules. What any particular Red Cross organization feels is completely irrelevant. These rules allow use by one side of the conflict's own medics, among other things. There is no treating both sides rule or anything like that.
Protective use of the symbol in an inappropriate context is a war crime. As is ignoring the symbol and firing upon a protected facility.
The Geneva conventions also allow indicative use of the symbols by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organizations. It is only supposed to be used by those organizations in this indicative sense, but it is not viewed as a war crime when this is violated.
Using the symbol in a game as a generic symbol for healing or medics is wrong. Use of the the symbol in the protective fashion in video games is arguably fine, as long as the game also treats ignoring the symbol as a war crime. I'm not sure I've ever seen a game where the player gets court marshaled if they fire upon an enemy's medics wearing the red cross symbol though, which is a real problem, and dilutes the meaning of the symbol.
One weird thing here is that for example, the American Red cross licenses the use of the symbol for purposes like first aid kits very much like those found in video games. This is in addition to the well known Johnson and Johnson trademark allowing them to use it on their first aid kits too.
The First Geneva convention article 39 allows the military to order that the symbol be on equipment used by in battle are supposed to have the symbol on it, so they would very much could carry first aid kits with a red cross on it.
FWIW, first aid kits in the UK almost exclusively use that symbol.
>In an increasingly uncertain world
...
That's just a categorically false accusation, since the whole point here is that they don't want the symbol to be used at all in certain contexts.
Sad, but all too common with modern charities!
"categorically false". cmon man
That being said, if the symbol was being used as the emblem of an evil army or crime syndicate in a game, I could understand them having a problem with it, however.
Part of the point of the symbol is to indicate the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, specifically, which keeps to strict neutrality in wartime. If it starts getting used willy-nilly it puts their members at greater risk because they are no longer clearly delineated from the medical services or army medics of specific countries.
https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...
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.
Google has also been taking defensive actions to prevent this from happening for all of recent history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm
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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-nam...
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 country from the Geneva Conventions. I doubt any party anywhere would ever adopt such a platform.
Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.
"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy.
"As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel with small arms to defend themselves or their patients and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are escorted by military personnel or such personnel are present or if the medical personnel are in possession of small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and not yet handed over to the proper service.
"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
Not sure about armor, although the general statement seems to be they would only lose their protected status if they commit specific actions.
Prison Architect actually received a notice about this. Their answer was very simple: replace the red cross with a green one. There is no reason other games cannot also make this very minor concession to the Geneva Conventions. It is the law.
Look to TV shows. It is very very rare to see an actual red cross. Ambulances on shows like Scrubs don't use them. Film/TV people know to respect that symbol and only use it in very specific scenarios. MASH used it extensively, but then too very carefully.
not really. they've got a zero tolerance approach to the appropriation of their symbol because the mission is so important and from their perspective it is all downside risk to them. they don't care about your video game, all they care about is misuse of their symbol.
and they're protected by the geneva convention and have all the weight of law behind them.
if they ask you to stop using their symbol its very simple and you need to stop.
the clarity of the rule means that they don't need to debate which usage is or isn't sufficient to produce the effects, it all simply needs to be removed and then they're assured it is not being diluted.
that is actually a perfectly reasonable perspective.
the fact that it doesn't allow for subjective arguments over the magnitude of the harm being done by the particular violation is a feature, not a bug.
The red cross sign in games/toys/films is a GOOD thing, it creates awareness.
And I see why, people think that there is no obvious financial interest for them.
But think again deeper about that, they are often selling their own brand. For example, in a lot of places, they are asking donations exchanging them with red cross stickers that they put on cars.
For some people it is a status symbol to have this sticker on their cars as it is a signal that "they are generous".
And, as said otherwise, the red cross recent history is plagued with waste of money and very bad management.
"The red cross is a powerful symbol of neutrality, impartiality, humanity and hope. Please help us protect it!"
They have redefined the cross, which to Christians, is the symbol of God's love for us, and the hope of healing and salvation, and therefore the driver for the origination of the organization itself - to be the hands and feet of Christ.
They have stripped it of its original meaning (for laudable purposes btw), and now are concerned when others do the same...