zlacker

>>Tomte+(OP)
> 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...

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.

>>yellow+Z5
>> 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.

>>sandwo+c8
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.

>>yellow+sb
> is a bit much

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.