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
> but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc.

Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.

>>jldugg+1c
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.

>>sandwo+if
Interestingly, not necessarily true. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul)

"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.