Health kit, anyone?
Video games have long employed the Red Cross emblem to depict hospitals, ambulances, combat medics and more commonly, health pickups. David Pratt of the Canadian Red Cross just didn't notice until now.
Pratt has asked that the video game industry discontinue all unauthorized and illegal uses of the organization's emblem. "It is our considered view that the various displays of the Red Cross...are inappropriate and are a breach of international and domestic law. The fact that the Red Cross is also used in videos which contain strong language and violence is also of concern to us in that they directly conflict with the basic humanitarian principles espoused by the Red Cross movement."
AE: I've never been in one myself but I'm quite certain that there is plenty "strong language and violence" in real wars.
Pratt requests that game developers and publishers "mount a comprehensive education campaign about the protected status of the Red Cross emblem." He is concerned that continued misuse would further perpetuate the misconception that the emblem is public property and may be used by any organization or for any commercial purpose. "As Canada is a signatory to the Convention, domestically the exclusive use of the emblem is reserved for the Medical Corps of the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Red Cross Society. This is confirmed in Canadian law under the Geneva Conventions Act and the Canadian Red Cross Society Act."
Not to be left out, the British Red Cross chimed in via GamesIndustry.biz with comments in line with Pratt's. "It is important for videogame manufacturers not to use the emblem in their games, including for matters related to its humanitarian purpose, such as first aid or general medical care," said Michael Meyer, head of international law for the British Red Cross. "The use of the emblem in videogames is both illegal and detrimental to the special protective value of the emblem."
So what does the game industry think of all this? The Vancouver Sun reports the IGDA's Jason Della Rocca admitting that developers haven't yet had a chance to respond because the issue is too new. "I don't think anyone knowingly or willingly infringed on the rights of the Red Cross," he said.
Pratt says he understands why developers would include such a universally recognizable emblem in their games but insists that "such use amounts to us losing control of the historic emblem." He reports that while most companies have been very receptive to the Red Cross's concerns, there remains one major game developer that refuses to acquiesce to the organization's wishes. The company was not named.
While use of the emblem without permission from the Red Cross is illegal under Canadian law, it's nevertheless refreshing to see that Pratt recognizes that the Red Cross's time and money can be better utilized outside the courtroom. In this litigation-happy day and age it's nice to see that there are those who favor open lines of communication for addressing grievances and seeking amicable solutions.
AE: Many thanks to Jabrwock for his assistance with researching Canadian law.
-Andrew Eisen
 | Game Politics (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small} gamepolitics) wrote, |
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
February 13 2006, 15:48:28 UTC 6 years ago
this won't go far
because isn't that cross considered common place seeings it's use as a reference to anything medical? Why hasn't the Red Cross sued any hospitals for using it, we don't see them asking for the Red Cross for permission do we? That cross is just too common to be trademarked. I don't see this going too far."It is our
consideredconceded view that the various displays of the Red Cross...are inappropriate and are a breach of international and domestic law. The fact that the Red Cross is also used in videos which contain strong language and violence is also of concern to us in that they directly conflict with the basic humanitarian principles espoused by the Red Cross movement."February 13 2006, 15:51:02 UTC 6 years ago
Re: this won't go far
I don't know how protected it is, considering prior use and all that, but if it is indeed it is within their rights to restrict people from using it, even selectively.6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 15:53:22 UTC 6 years ago
Seriously, unless they make a paramedic game like they do those cop games where everyone is crooked then there is no reason to be POed about this. Even if the symbol is in a game where there is lude conduct the symbol is shown in a positive light.
February 13 2006, 15:59:21 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 15:56:32 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 15:58:35 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 15:59:23 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:40:49 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:05:11 UTC 6 years ago
Either it's about the money, or it's about not being affiliated with a Demonic Industry that His Great Lawyerness opposes.
Jeez, they should start by getting a life, then looking at themselves before blaming others.
February 13 2006, 16:06:53 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:58:41 UTC 6 years ago
You can have a can of soda, or "cola", or "pop" or whatever, but you can't have a can of Pepsi without their permission. Makes perfect sense to me.
While I'm not sure how much merit this current complaint contains (IANAL nor do I know how their copyright is even set up or enforced), the system you propose is to let everyone do what they want with anything.
February 13 2006, 16:08:51 UTC 6 years ago
This seems odd
The symbol has been used in games for as long as there have been health packs in games - thats at least a decade of 3D shooters and I'd be surprised if there werent some old 2D sidescrollers that used it as well. If being used in this manner was in some way harmful to the organisation then you'd think that they'd have noticed before now.Still, its easy enough to fix - just stick some other log on there (question: would it be sufficient to just change the colour of the cross?)
February 13 2006, 16:13:51 UTC 6 years ago
Re: This seems odd
Yes, a green cross is not trademarked, by the Red Cross, anyway. This whole thing reeks of stupid, like Target trying to copyright a bullseye. I can understand the specific bullseye, or if the Red Cross was specifically mentioned without permission, but a red cross is pretty much synonymous with medics or medical services. It's got to be Public Domain by now, what the limiting term of trademarks or copyrights? Any law experts out there?6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:09:41 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:28:50 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 16:42:38 UTC 6 years ago
For warfare games in WW2 (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor), it's for authenticity- how else are you going to know that the guy who just got shot was a medic that you could have saved and helped rescue people with?
This is just another one of those whiney complaining groups who are offended by the fact that video games have violence, and feel as if they're singled out by making, at best, a tenuous connection that the implications surrounding their group raises far too many questions and ruins their image. Grand Theft Auto is offensive because a criminal gets bed-rest at a hospital? And you find it offensive that a health organization would extend their services to those whose lives could be saved? Implying that could be alot more damaging than having "your" insignia in a violent game.
February 13 2006, 16:43:19 UTC 6 years ago
buh..WHAaaaa?
Okay, maybe they didn't notice them in games. BUT MOVIES!?!?!?! This has to be total BS, because I saw this symbol in use in movies way sooner than videogames, and movies tend to be way more realistic with just as much ludeness, gore, indecency, etc.What was the point of them complaining now?
This just in, God doesn't want us to have blue skies in games anymore. Apparently developers didn't ask his permission.
February 13 2006, 16:43:21 UTC 6 years ago
More info
From http://chapters.redcross.org/ok/okc/OKCThe prohibitions [regarding emblem use] are not designed to protect any vested interest of the Red Cross as an organization. Actually the American Red Cross and other national Red Cross societies are in effect only licensees. They have been granted the right to use the name and emblem for specified humanitarian purposes.
Are the Words "Red Cross" Copyrighted? Is the Red Cross on a White Background a trademark?
No. The Red Cross name and emblem are not the property of the American Red Cross as a corporation. The American Red Cross is entitled to use the name and emblem only because it is the officially designated volunteer organization envisioned by the Geneva Conventions to assist the United States government in carrying out its treaty obligations. The treaties anticipate the existence of such an organization in each country bound by the treaties and authorize such organizations to make use of the name and emblem in carrying out the humanitarian activities for which they are established.
In Summary, What Are the Rules for Use of the Red Cross Name and Emblem?
In accordance with International and federal law, the use of the name and emblem of the Red Cross in the United States is limited except for certain pre-1905 users [Johnson & Johnson] - to the medical departments and to the American Red Cross. As noted above, the American Red Cross has no authority to waive or relax these limitations. Virtually all of those firms that have used the name or emblem without knowing of its legal restrictions are willing to desist voluntarily, thus supporting and preserving the use of the symbol of protection of mercy.
Here’s the U.S. Criminal Code that addresses Red Cross emblem usage.
Has anything like this ever happened? Sure. Three and a half years ago, Anchor Bay released the Sleepaway Camp trilogy in a DVD boxset done up to look like a blood-splattered first aid kit. Of course, the Red Cross emblem was part of the design. Within weeks of its release the company was contacted by the Canadian Red Cross, informed of the emblem's improper use, and asked to alter the packaging.
“We did a review of whether there were any trademarks associated with [the red cross logo] and we thought we had done a reasonable amount of due diligence in identifying any restrictions. We thought the red cross was a public domain image. That turned out not to be true,” said senior brand manager Tom Bambard.
More info can be found here.
On a side note, I own the Sleepaway Camp DVD boxset with the original packaging.
Andrew Eisen
February 13 2006, 17:03:08 UTC 6 years ago
Re: More info
Thank you.6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 17:00:20 UTC 6 years ago
Fair enough...
Well, the only reason it got used was because no-one seemed to mind. I don't doubt games will change them on request, even if it's to a Green Cross, which isn't copyrighted iirc ;)Either way, if it's white and square, it's probably worth picking it up.
February 13 2006, 18:49:25 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Fair enough...
Unless it's a brick of cocaine, in which case it depends on the game.6 years ago
February 13 2006, 17:19:35 UTC 6 years ago
Since it's not exactly a trademark, it isn't bound by the same requirements for pursuing protection within an allotted time period. There's nothing anyone can do to take the symbol into the public domain.
Now, maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, the usage that they are taking issue to isn't the use of the symbol to depict hospitals or ambulances, as that is still in essence using the symbol appropriately to direct the viewer to humanitarian and medical aid. The issue literally comes down to health packs, as near as I can tell, since that is not inherently medical (and certainly doesn't operate like any medical pack I've ever seen).
So change the color to something that isn't a red cross on a white background and move on.
Deleted comment
February 13 2006, 17:37:29 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 18:30:22 UTC 6 years ago
It's not degrading the Red Cross organization...
Stop me if I'm wrong, but who ends up equating the Red Cross with demonic invasions, or zombie attacks just because the symbol is in Doom or Resident Evil? It's a symbol of healing, a symbol of recovery, something that all gamers learn at a very young age. After any given tragedy (Tsunami, Katrina, 9/11) clicking on a button marked "Donate" next to a Red Cross symbol is practically second nature after picking up hundreds of med-packs.I hope this doesn't go far; or if it does, that the end result is that game companies are ordered to "Treat the Red Cross symbol with respect." or something abstract like that, which most game developers would do anyway.
February 13 2006, 19:44:15 UTC 6 years ago
Re: It's not degrading the Red Cross organization...
I think that's why the Red Cross is not ordering anything, but rather trying to open the lines of dialogue.They just want to make sure that nobody thinks it's public domain. That there are rules for it's use, and if the Red Cross thinks you've crossed the line, they just want you to know that they *could* take action if they so chose...
February 13 2006, 18:39:03 UTC 6 years ago
February 14 2006, 00:24:22 UTC 6 years ago
(note to non-Canadians: I am making fun of his avatar icon)
February 13 2006, 19:31:29 UTC 6 years ago
odd
ya know, its funny timing with this story, as I am wearing a Red Cross shirt, getting ready to donate blood tomorrow. >_>February 13 2006, 20:35:44 UTC 6 years ago
Re: odd
O RLY?February 13 2006, 20:12:39 UTC 6 years ago
Asprin?
It's been quite a few years since business class in high school, but i seem to remember something about a copyright case. Asprin was a brand name of...well asprin. But as it became so widely spread as a term for just the form of the medicine itself it became common useage. the brand let it go until it saw that it's revenues were being negatively impacted. Then when it tried to enforce it's copyright the courts disolved it stateing that it had become soo widely used as a popular term that it could no longer be restricted like that.(LIke i said it's been a long time so correct me if i'm wrong.)
This might apply here.
February 13 2006, 20:33:28 UTC 6 years ago
More like a flag
Except that Asprin was a trademark that became intellectual property. The "Geneva Cross" was never a trademark in the usual sense.I see the symbol as the equivalent to using a country's flag. You wouldn't be allowed to use Canada's flag on your product without the permission of the canadian government. Same thing here. The "Geneva Cross" is the Red Cross's "flag" and is therefore protected from trademark dillution by international agreement, and is considered "above" trademark & intellectual property law...
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 20:22:46 UTC 6 years ago
February 13 2006, 20:25:42 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 13 2006, 21:12:41 UTC 6 years ago
O_o huh!?!?!?!?
It might be the fact that medics in the games get guns, but even a medic has to defend his/herself. And where's our favorite stand up comic/lawyer's takes on this?February 13 2006, 23:04:01 UTC 6 years ago
Well, in Australia at least, there has been an established logo for first aid for years now...
http://www.stjohnact.com.au/KS%20Leisur
A green circle with a white cross. It's not copyrighted (that I know of), and you'll find it on every kit, certificate, and sign relating to first aid.
February 13 2006, 23:05:59 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 14 2006, 00:10:09 UTC 6 years ago
The reason to protect the symbol is quite straight forward, it's so the red cross can work in any place safely. The red cross organisiation is supposed to be completely impartial and offer medical aid to anyone in need.
Allowing the symbol to be used by simply anyone puts those personnel at risk, and therefore the service they provide at risk.
This isn't a case of enforcing the trademark for cash purposes. If the image is not protected then we could have a situation where red cross personnel/vehicles are denied access to wounded persons because there would be no longer be any guarantee of neutrality.
AFAIK no one attached to any political/military group or holding a non-neutral allegiance is entitled to use the symbol. Although I think it is permissible to put the symbol on a medical bag/kit because it readily identifies the purpose of the equipment, but wearing or displaying the symbol by non-red cross personnel/locations is not.
In short the symbol needs to be protected to ensure the red cross can continue to do their work.
Notice that all bar one of the major games companies have agreed to comply. I personally think the non-cooperating company should be named and shamed.
February 14 2006, 00:49:40 UTC 6 years ago
I'm not saying that what game developers are doing is legal (apparently, it isn't). I'm just saying that the reasons you're giving don't really justify the restriction of red cross use in video games. I can't get past a military checkpoint with a copy of Call of Duty 2.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 14 2006, 00:42:18 UTC 6 years ago
Time for useless trivia with Mr.Falcon
Side note: In the 80's Nintendo of America restricted the use of the Red Cross, not for legal or trademark reasons, but because of their policies restricting the use of religious iconography.BTW, if the game industry adopts a new symbol to replace the red cross in their games, it better not look like this either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Crysta
February 14 2006, 00:43:11 UTC 6 years ago
Wiiiiiiiiirrrrrrd!
I mean, what else is there to say?Its really really really wird!
Also how is this "derogitory" to the Red Cross? I mean we all love medical packs and health stations and stuff. Also the Red Cross was IN WWII! THat had strong laungige and lots of gratuitus violence.
All violence is gratuitus in real life, thats why its better to have it in game's where it can't hurt people.
February 14 2006, 00:52:19 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Wiiiiiiiiirrrrrrd!
Yeah, I'm not sure how "strong language" conflicts with the humanitarian purpose of the Red Cross. Sure, some people don't like to hear it, but I hardly think that subjecting them to it is inhumane :)6 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →