If they remove it then what the hell else are they gonna use for health in games!? red hearts?? gez, removing the red cross will remove some of the realisim of the game. And thats way too much!

MAESTVM!
(Latin for "How pathetic")

Should the Red Cross get its way in this then I shall never again contribute one single, solitary penny to them. Period.

Maybe someone has pointed it out already, I don't know.

Has anyone noticed that the images Mr. Pratt provided were of medics? As I understand the usage of the Red Cross, it can be used by medics on the battlefield. So here we have a virtual world that is using the symbol as it's used in real life. How exactly is that misusing the Red Cross? At least in Half-Life 2.

I can understand that Mr. Pratt doesn't want the image misused, I don't either. But at the same time, Valve hasn't really used the cross in a way that is contrary to real life situations and likely to cause "confusion" in it's use, or even as logo for their business.

“The Canadian Red Cross mission is to improve the lives of vulnerable people by mobilizing the power of humanity in Canada and around the world.”

The emblem of the Red Cross is a symbol used since the inception of, what is arguably the world's most potent, humanitarian movement at the First Geneva Conventions in 1864. What does it mean to "mobilize the power of humanity" over the course of generations?

Symbols are the containers of meaning in human language. To those who faithfully subscribe to the humanitarian movement's purpose, the movement’s primary symbol stands for Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity and Universality (the seven fundamental principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent). The humanitarian movement is dedicated to providing crucial services to victims of natural disasters, holding governments accountable to the Geneva Conventions, promoting communities’ capacities in addressing local and distant forms of crisis around the world, and much more (as defined by committed members of the humanitarian movement).

In this light, investing time, energy and funds into protecting the designated meaning of such a symbol is necessary. The meaning of a symbol changes over time as a natural result of the evolution of human communication. If the use of the symbol is not protected, it will come to mean (and has already come to mean) to many people such generic concepts as ambulance mobile, health, band-aids and (most regretably as depicted in video games) armed soldiers killing “the enemy”.

The communication of integrity drives popular movements, and so the misuse (to the point of corruption) of a movement’s primary symbol destroys the lifeblood of that particular movement.

For once I'm rather split on an issue involving our beloved game industry. For one, a simple red cross as many have pointed out seems like a very basic symbol, and while it is protected and not copyrighted, it seems like it would take a very long time to get rid of all the infractions.

However, that being said, it seems to me the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention's rules on the use of the red cross emblem was to make it easy for those really in combat zones to seek medical aid. Just look for the big red plus and you'll be A-OK.

Think of an example that was mentioned in the interview: people using the red cross for their computer repair companies. In a theoretical combat zone, someone is wounded and looking for medical attention. They see the red cross and think, "Ah! Medical help!" only to realize it's a computer repair company.

That being said, games aren't real life. And to sum this all up, I'd say using the caduceus would be acceptable. I know at least in my local area, the caduceus is used in EMS, such as on uniforms and ambulances: http://www.sunstarems.com/images/homepix.jpg

What symbol does the army/navy/whoever use to identify their medics? Or do they even have a symbol at all?

Good to know that our donations to the Red Cross goes to support such wonderful endeavours. Hope they won't get offended if they get the finger next time they knock on my door.

I'm curious how this applies to other forms of media. I'm pretty sure I've seen the red cross logo in movies. What about first aid kits, don't they use that logo?

You can't really argue with their point of view towards protecting their emblem, but they just don't seem very aware of it overall. Had the kid not mentioned it would they even notice?

FYI, we just got linked from BoingBoing.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/11/canadian_red_cross_v.html

easy. just put a stylized caduceus on medpacks and medics in games.

Time for a little history lesson:

Read this -> http://www.redcross.org/emblem/history.html

(hmmm...404 Object Not Found? What the...?? How ODD! :/
Try this -> http://web.archive.org/web/20021223005117/http://www.redcross.org/emblem/history.html )

Now, considering that the emblem was adopted by the Geneva Convention treaty, how could it possibly not be in public domain?

Also, how can the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies "adopt" this very same emblem without it being in public domain? Did the Red Cross sign some legal papers granting them permission to "adopt" it's emblem?

-woz

I guess there are no people in the world that are worth saving anymore. The organization that once stood for helping people in any way, shape or form now cares more about their logo placement than giving a child another few moments of life. Perhaps they are doing a favor? A favor to that child to not have to live in such a world that prizes a dollar over a heart beat. They are using those dollars for a lawsuit that serves no moral purpose whatsoever.

When people see the logo of a red cross in a game, it is a gleaming of light in a dark world and it gives a feeling of safety. Even in the most derogatory of games, seeing a red cross lets you know that there is help around and that not everyone is really out to get you.

The Red Cross was founded with the idea that any action that take will always help those other than themselves. This action that they are about to possibly take will not help others, it will even harm the Red Cross's image. Growing up I played many videos games, violent and otherwise. Those video games helped to bolster my respect for any person who wears a red cross, not lessen it.

First off, what a civilized interview! This really is an interesting issue, and I did in fact think the red cross symbol was in the public domain. I don't mind if people start using other symbols to indicate medics, but it really seems unfortunate. I think the association between the red cross symbol and health / medics is a good one to instill in gamers as it is a legitimate connection. It is an accurate reflection of historical events, and is a likely reflection of hypothetical future events involving medics. Furthermore, it could be argued that it increases red cross brand awareness just by having people associate the symbol with the activity.

The trouble is that it would really be impractical for them to ensure that every use of the symbol is appropriate, so it really is simpler for them to just say that nobody can use it. I think, though, that this is a mistake as it will confuse understanding of pictures/films from wars (where, in games, the red cross symbol is used like any other national flag) and dilute the symbol's power.

So is America's Army okay then? can they use the red cross emblem since it's a goverment project?

I just think that the image is so generic that these rules can't apply. It can be a red plus symbol just as easily. I guess they might have to remove these symbols from our keyboards as well :( I will make a company called the black line _ , then I will sue you all!! :P

How can a private organisation get these priveldges and still not be considered a symbol for the public domain. What if the Microsoft symbol meant we weren't allowed to shoot a technician in time of war?

I'm suprised at the amount of people in here intelligently agreeing with Mr. Pratt here. I didn't expect so many people to "get" this. I think a lot of people are shocked that the Red Cross "Red Cross" is, in fact, NOT in the public domain. I know I was.

To the others who disagree, imagine if all speed power ups in video games used the Nike swoosh. I'm pretty sure they'd (reasonably) do something about that.

sue me +

Just use the swiss flag in games, white-on-red.

Look, I completely agree with this. I mean so we can't use a red cross in games. Let's deal with more pressing issues, like Jack Thompson.

we have a receptionist, a fellow who's in his early 20s. He plays video games, and he's obviously involved in the Red Cross and aware of this issue

Nice going, genius! ;)

It's an interesting topic. In the same vein I was reading one of my gf's legal magazines and it actually contained an ad from Xerox imploring those in the legal profession to no longer refer the copies as "xeroxes" for fear that the term might become ubiquitous and they would lose the copyright (as happened with Aspirin).
Guess there's such a thing as too much name-brand recognition after all :)

All a developer need say is that it's a red X that's been rotated 45 degrees. I don't think anyone can reasonably lay claim to an X being protected.

That's funny - there's no Canadian Red Cross anymore... It's called Canadian Blood Services.

So... what should game developers use instead? I mean we all think "cross = health" so what else could be recognizable?

The Red Cross really does have a valid point and they do very much have a legal standing. In this case, it is an international one too which really strengthens their claims 100 fold. I think their arguements are very valid as well.

Now, that said, I think a request asking the symbols to be changed on existing games on the market would be somewhat unreasonable considering how wide spread its usage is. But, requesting that some different symbol be used for future games unless they have the Red Cross' permission seems fair.

Honestly, I could see ways that this could benefit the Red Cross too. If gaming companies wanted to use the Red Cross symbol in their games, perhaps some sort of agreement could be reached to include a splash screen saying "Support your local Red Cross" or something like that at the start. The Red Cross really is an amazing charitable organization and I certainly would support something like that.

As odd as the request is, I really don't see anything wrong with it from a legal or conceptual standpoint. I think it is less a matter of importance anyway as most good game designs have been moving away from things like "Health Packs" for the sake of immersion anyway. The only places I could see this really being some sort of an issue would be in historical re-enactment games and the like where you would want to depict red cross medics. But, again, judging from the arguement by the Red Cross, I doubt they would mind that sort of depiction so long as they were given a nod of recognition in the use of their symbol.

Red Cross is an important organization, and they really are asking this because in times when they are needed they want people to recognize their symbol and know that it is the Red Cross without hesitation because it could save a life.

Can't everyone just say it's not a red "cross"? If it were me I'd just say it's a red plus sign. :-(

http://www.juno.co.uk/ppps/products/178125-01.htm
http://www.juno.co.uk/covers/178125-01-front.htm

OMG THEY USED THE RED CROSS! SUE THEM!!

Oh no's! Fileshack will have to change the icon for 'patches' since it has the Red Cross logo! http://www.fileshack.com/


Bah whatever. I can see what their saying, though and it is understandable. We've all made that mistake associating the symbol with medical relief but I can't imagine a simplier logo to represent it. Oh well.

Switch it to a headcrab or something :P

So apparently the guys at Raven already know what time it is: http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/quake4/Quake+4/2/thumbs/091605_q4_mp_3.jpg and http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/quake4/Quake+4/1/thumbs/051605_quake4.jpg