I guess they're pretty fucking selective about when they choose to enforce this, huh? There have always been red crosses in tons of games. Taito's Operation Wolf (1987) springs to mind.

I'm wondering if the red cross has nothing better to do than chase after game developers, next time they won't get any donations... not from me at least.

You mean to say it seems like they're seeing red?

I think this is the wrong thread,those ahh shall I say no I won't corny jokes and play on words.

No matter what bad you can say about the organization, at least their logo is a big plus.

A red cross appears on almost all items used to health people. It's an universal symbol. So what, Red Cross will ban all these signs on everything ? It's just a question of copyright, nothing to see with the Geneva Convention...

I think you are overreacting there a bit. Not donating because they have a dispute with some small game company about some small symbol used somewhere in some game of them... this is hardly a big thing. And legally it seems to be a protected symbol, so there is even some justification for a dispute. Maybe they just don't want to be related to this particular game.

Maybe they shouldn't waste resources on trivial things. Games are art, I don't see why a "protected symbol" couldn't be used in art. It's like I'm a painter and paint an ambulance, but have to do it without a red cross because the symbol is protected. Crazy...

In a war zone, if someone gets a red cross vehicle in their crosshair, they need to instantly recognize it as something which is 100 % neutral. Unlike a brand like McDonald or Microsoft, Red Cross has some actual life-or-death reasons to be uptight here.

However ...

In Denmark, Røde Kors (Red Cross) is running numerous refugee centers. This, of course, makes them an integrated part of Denmarks refugee policy. So they're not really sticking to the neutrality themselves. :-/

Well I think they should be hung on the cross till they go red in the face

I disagree, it's the perfect reason not to donate. It shows that your money isn't going to help people but being wasted on pointless trivial shit like this.
Having worked with charities before I won't donate to any of the major ones anymore, because I know no good will come of my money and they are all corrupt and useless.

If you paint for yourself, you can do what you want. If you sell your artwork and if by chance your artwork is a bit extreme and if by chance you exchange the red cross with for example the US flag, you might get problems.

So, what you are really opposed against is having the red cross as a protected symbol.
If you don't donate to anything major because you think they are all corrupt and useless then they haven't lost anything really.

Are we seriously in here bitching about the legitimacy of The Red Cross now?



I give up on this planet! I'm moving to Jupiter!

What I'm opposed against is enforcing protected symbols in works of art.