zlacker

What does this accomplish?

>>arthur+(OP)
IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use and which they have no control over. If that happens then it completely undermines its purpose and significance in disaster or humanitarian situations.

>>jamest+31
It's not the same legally as an ordinary trademark, so I don't think that's their exact motivation. I think the idea is that they want everyone to know about believe that the emblem is only used for Red Cross activities and therefore that it's bad, and even a war crime, to attack those displaying it in a conflict environment. If people have seen it coming up in other contexts, that intuition or association might be weakened.

>>arthur+(OP)
increasing awareness of the problem

>>afiori+I9
This seems like a very petty problem to focus on in "an increasingly uncertain world". I think establishing a link between people making/playing video games and people who actually abuse the red cross symbol causing actual casualties is just plain counterproductive. Until they back that connection with actual data, I stand unmoved by their statement.

>>schoen+F1
This argument makes the most sense to me, thank you

>>kleene+ym
They gave little to no evidence that video games and other uses of the red cross symbol are responsible for those deaths; what they did is assert the importance of their mission and the risk in diluiting the meaning of the logo.

Personally I found that part to be badly written; but it is still reasonable position.