Never mind Iraq...
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Never mind Iraq...
Wow this is the dumbest thing I've read in a looooong time. What a leech!
i saw a thread like this at gamedev.net.
OMG! Nintendo was right! Only now I undertand the relevance of cuting red crosses out of NES games! Wow, that took a while!
Solution:
It seems to be a reasonable request although I think it
would be hard for them to enforce accross the board. That
being said I think a game developer would not want to waste
money on legal fees to defend against the lawyers of the red
cross. The prudent thing to do would be to use another
emblem like a blue cross or a red cresent.
============
Boycott Aruba, Dutch law sucks
============
I think it's pretty dumb myself. I think most people associate that symbol with ambulances and first aid kits. The symbol also works in pretty much any circumstance and is recognizeable from a distance.
Other medical symbols wouldn't work well in most types of games, especially cartoony ones.
Also, a plus symbol people recognize as meaning an increase in value.
The swiss cross up there I think most people would still recognize as a health symbol, but it doesn't really work too well for use on an ambulance, and people would still expect first aid kits to be white.
Hey Sswift that's the swiss flag. Basicly the red cross has stolen their logo from the swiss flag anyway, so they better be quiet. In fact their
headquarter is right in geneva, 200 meters visavis the
UNO headquarters. They are all there. Even the
Chateau Pregny. JCDenton was right. The truth is out there.
I've been meaning to cash in on one of these things.
If you plan to use a red Dash, it's too late!
*Sits and waits for big $$$$ from those who are now deprived of the right to sell things with pictures of Plus signs*
I call dibs on the orange rhombus!
[img http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:sQtdLCVz3UwXGM:members.cox.net/gcafferty/SquareRotatedAlsoRhombus.gif]
I lay claim upon the Orange Mark.
I lay claim on Teh Star.
How the @#!* can you copyright a red plus sign anyway?
Amon:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop using those symbols in place of your swear words, as they are trademarked by Parker Brothers.
They're trying to cite trademark infringement when, in order for a trademark to be valid, it has to be protected at all times. This would require that the Red Cross defended its trademark under all circumstances in the past. Which it hasn't. So frankly, this has no legal bearing. Just thought I'd mention that.
>Video games are now violating the Geneva Convention!?!
Quite reasonable.
>I think it's pretty dumb myself. I think most people
>associate that symbol with ambulances and first aid kits.
>The symbol also works in pretty much any circumstance and
>is recognizeable from a distance.
Propably because the symbol has been exclusive to the Red Cross for so long, that it is ingrained into our culture.
>Other medical symbols wouldn't work well in most types of
>games, especially cartoony ones.
Nevertheless, the symbol wasn't designed for this use.
>They're trying to cite trademark infringement when, in
>order for a trademark to be valid, it has to be protected
>at all times. This would require that the Red Cross
>defended its trademark under all circumstances in the
>past. Which it hasn't. So frankly, this has no legal
>bearing. Just thought I'd mention that.
The red cross, red crescent etc. symbols are not just ordinary 'trademarks', they're international symbols established by treaty. Every signatory to the geneva conventions is bound to defend and protect these symbols.
There are also international treaties regarding state symbols, like various crown designs, crests, etc. which means that if you use a state symbol of another country without permission, then your nation must defend and protect that symbol(ie. force you to not use it).
Andy
I don't think there's a whole lot that's going to be done regarding this. It's just beyond the scope of what's possible if you take into consideration the vast amount of games produced that are either free or not published by a major publisher, but rather sold off of some guy's website for some spare change (yes, including independent games -- ours aren't exempt from this). So, while they may be able to target some developers, I believe that ultimately nothing will happen and it will be dismissed as being unsound.
The red cross, red crescent etc. symbols are not just ordinary 'trademarks', they're international symbols established by treaty.
No they aren't. The treaty simply signifies how these symbols should be applied. Like don't put a Red Cross on a valid military target (like a fuel or ammo dump) as it would dilute the meaning of the symbol and may lead to soldiers thinking Red Cross workers and medics are fair game.
Using them in a video game is not diluting it's meaning in the same way, particularly if they're used in war games, considering that in real life, a combat medics bag DOES have a Rad Cross on it, and such a 'health pack', droped by said medic would not loose it's Red Cross, or it's contents. Ofcourse, boobytrapping that bag WOULD be against the geneva conventions (if said conventions even cover pretend wars, rather than real wars).
I find it somewhat disturbing that a Red Cross spokesperson would trivialize a real war in such a way.
Anyway the outcome is pretty predictable (as quite a few responses have shown). Video game companies will simply class the Red Cross alongside the Nazi Swaztika, as the second symbol you're not allowed to use. Presumably the Red Cross would rather be associated with Nazis than Videogames. Wouldn't have been my call, but then again, I'm not a Red Cross spokesperson.
Also what if you make one by accident. For example, work first aid kits are often green with a white cross. You might think, hmm, well I want to change the colours to white and red in my game and not be thinking of the red cross. Also it's such a basic symbol that lends itself to translation into pixel graphics very easily and the colours are pure, not pastels or anything. Furthermore it's a mathematical symbol. You could ague that your health meter is red and thus a red + increases the health meter, logical and nothing to do with red cross.
Hahaha! Q*bert = awesome. sswift++
its a frikken plus sign! + + + + + take that redcross
I like the guys name. David Pratt. ^.^
I AM A WAR CRIMINAL
jhocking:
No, you're not, that red cross is on a blue background.
LOOPHOLE FTW
white bg here
This article is the dumbest thing I've ever layed my eyes on. The cross isn't even being depicted wrongly.
The red cross gets represented as the "healer" and "life-giver" in a video game, and they get angry about it?!
This deserves an Asinine Tag.
http://www.rapidsharing.com/c30a9fe516d7b8a20ef0fe6c90d29a45 Yeah it's not exactly used as a symbol for "rape villager" or "poison the watersupply" or "shoot all the males"
>The red cross gets represented as the "healer" and "life-
>giver" in a video game, and they get angry about it?!
Of course, because the red cross is used by people, companies and organisations other than 'red cross'.
The more the symbol is used without connection to the red cross, the more irrelevant and mainstream it becomes. Most gamers have propably seen the symbol, but wouldn't be able to articulate the meaning of the symbol if their lives depended on it.
Andy
Of course, because the red cross is used by people, companies and organisations other than 'red cross'.
I don't see them raising the issue with other industries.
This is just stupid...
Like Flameduck said, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to PRETEND WARS!!!
The whole point of protecting the Red Cross symbol is to make sure that it isn't being exploited in war (i.e. paint your convoy filled with troops and weapons with Red Crosses to make sure they are not attacked).
I would argue that it would even be OK to depict people misusing the Red Cross as fiction... as long as the depiction is clearly understood to be fiction.
>Like Flameduck said, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply
>to PRETEND WARS!!!
Nobody ever claimed it did. The issue is whether the symbol should remain exclusively a red cross symbol. The reference to the geneva conventions, is simply a way of clarifying that the symbol is exclusive to the red cross.
>The whole point of protecting the Red Cross symbol is to
>make sure that it isn't being exploited in war (i.e. paint
>your convoy filled with troops and weapons with Red
>Crosses to make sure they are not attacked).
No, it is equally about protecting the symbol against use by others not affiliated with red cross. If the symbol is protected against abuse, then it will still carry a meaning when it is used in war.
If using it was a free for all, then the symbol would carry no meaning at all, or rather everyone would associate different meanings to it and it would thus be useless. The symbol must remain 'exclusive' in order for everyone to know what it means.
>I would argue that it would even be OK to depict people
>misusing the Red Cross as fiction... as long as the
>depiction is clearly understood to be fiction.
How can you be sure that it is clearly understood? People generally don't see things in the same light, and something which for you is clear, is propably unclear to everyone else.
Andy
Oh well, if I can't use the red cross, I'll use the white cross from the Swiss flag.
It's red and white, so either way chances are it'll be associated with health in a game.
Meh, first aid kits in the UK are green and white now, anyways. :)
I ain't in the UK, so it makes little difference.
I think I'll create a game entitled The Red Plus and flaunt their symbol EVERYWHERE... See if they try to come get me.
I'll be right behind you. Just far enough so when they come get you they won't see me. =]