zlacker

>>Tomte+(OP)
> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians.

I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.

EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.

>>throwa+b4
I think this quotation best summarizes the article

"When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use"

The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

>>dfdz+V5
There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color.

I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.

>>aetern+Zj
> There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols.

The Red Cross symbol is sui generis, it is not a (normal) trademark.

Use of the symbols in peace time is prohibited under Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (except as allowed under that article).

>It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color.

It's protected because it protects medics, the wounded and other vulnerable non-combatants in war. It's a vital humanitarian tool.