zlacker

> 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+(OP)
The problem is that it's not just governed by national trademark, but by international treaty.

>>yellow+(OP)
Hold on … I surely can’t go and start a drinks company and call my drink coke? Same with a search engine and Google?

>>yellow+(OP)
> 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.

Was "tissue" ever a trademark? Did you mean "Kleenex"?

FWIW, "Kleenex", "Coke", and "Google", all still have their protected status. "Aspirin" was once a trademark (of Bayer?), but is no longer.

>>yellow+(OP)
>> 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.

>>quickt+P
No, but it's a closer call than you might think, and (the general idea) has been litigated relatively recently: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/goo...

Google has also been taking defensive actions to prevent this from happening for all of recent history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm

>>sandwo+d2
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.

>>jp57+12
Yeah, I meant Kleenex. There are more examples here. Some of these still hold protected status as you mentioned.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-nam...

>>yellow+t5
> 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_.

>>yellow+(OP)
I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police their “trademark” instead of their primary mission is a massive waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is inherently common because the main place the average person sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.

>>yellow+t5
But it isn't a creative work. It is an adopted symbol more akin to a national flag or religious structure. The laws that protect it from violence trump things like freedom of speech. Use of it in a game, a situation where people can simulate the misuse of that symbol, reduce its realworld significance.

Prison Architect actually received a notice about this. Their answer was very simple: replace the red cross with a green one. There is no reason other games cannot also make this very minor concession to the Geneva Conventions. It is the law.

Look to TV shows. It is very very rare to see an actual red cross. Ambulances on shows like Scrubs don't use them. Film/TV people know to respect that symbol and only use it in very specific scenarios. MASH used it extensively, but then too very carefully.

>>yellow+t5
> 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.

>>jldugg+26
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.

>>yellow+(OP)
I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...

>>sandwo+j9
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.

>>theodr+jq
What's hilarious about it?