It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Kotaku have crossed the line(123 posts)(123 posts)
(123 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
elus89: We're reducing the suffering in games as well. Disagree.
avatar
lukaszthegreat: no. we create suffering in game. killing people, monsters. even if they are bad.

You just made my case. If it existed before, then the symbol was already too generic to lay a trademark claim on.
that was over a century ago! Then took the symbol upon themselves. 150 years ago.
I already argued the logic of it. If you can't agree, then just leave it at that.
What logic?


What you're saying doesn't make much sense. If it's visible from afar and easily understood, then how is that the Red Cross is the only one that can lay claim to it? There had to have been a time when the Red Cross association wasn't so well known or international and it was still understood as a health symbol then.
Red Cross is associated with humanitarian movement protected under international laws. It is understand as of health symbol because 150 years ago they took the symbol upon themselves and made it a health symbol. what is so hard to understand it.

Also, if you add "Red Cross" to the trademark, you're not making it any more hard to understand, the basic symbol is still associated with the purpose. If you stylize it, you're adding more subtle marks to it to make it distinguishable as a trademark, from afar the symbol is still cognizably the same. Just like you can tell a coat of arms without knowing which faction it necessarily represents.
It is not a trademark. it is something much bigger protected under geneva convention. By stylizing you are making it harder to understand. The symbols are simple because whether rain or sun, or night or day people can see the symbol. adding shit to it will make it less visible.

Even if the Red Cross was associated with them, the symbol is widespread and universal enough that to make legal claim to it is absurd. It's like Russia demanding payment because their flag was placed in a game. They can be as offended as they want, it's the restriction of a basic symbol to only their organization that's the problem.
No. The symbol is NOT A TRADEMARK, is not flag, is not coats of arms.
here read this:
Art. 44. With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. The same shall apply to the emblems mentioned in Article 38, second paragraph, in respect of the countries which use them. The National Red Cross Societies and other societies designated in Article 26 shall have the right to use the distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Convention only within the framework of the present paragraph.
and this:
Use of the emblems in Canada
The Geneva Cross, emblem of the Red Crescent & Red Lion and Sun are protected under the Trade-marks Act. Section 9(f-h) "Prohibited Marks" states:
“ No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for ...the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the federal colours of Switzerland, the emblem of the Red Crescent on a white ground, the equivalent sign of the Red Lion and Sun used by Iran
Fair point, I'll remove the term trademark from my future use and call it a legalized emblem. However, there are some important terms and clauses within the laws that aligns more closely to the case I make.

For one, it says "red cross on a white background", which we should've been more clear about before. It lessens the significance of either side of our argument somewhat.

Second, in that same clause it says "red cross on a white background AND the words" not or the words, therefore distinguishing the emblem in the way that I specified.

Lastly, the use of the emblem in Canada uses the exact terms "No person in connection with a business," whereas I would argue that the red cross is not used to associate with a business, it is just within the fiction of the game world.

As far as the logic goes, I was referring to the "'plus' sign" and "blood" argument, which I will stick to rigidly as far as a simple red cross goes (without the word and white background).

(The purpose of the red cross in the games is to heal (reduce suffering) whether in game or in war.)

(The time-frame for when the symbol was used previously does not matter... at least as far as the singularity of the red cross without the white background and words "Red Cross".) [It does matter somewhat, contextually (but not to my logic of previous establishment). I think I was a bit bullish, given the point we started out from (that the Red Cross was seeking some way to interfere with games by making it adhere to the Geneva Convention). It matters in a fairly complex way to some effect, I may get to that in a future post. I was inferring some trademark rational here though, so I'll drop the point.]

P.S. The quoting system is fairly aggravating. Is there someway to fix a post simply? I keep trying to box out at the bottom of the previous post, but it doesn't accept that. What worked (though I don't like the final results) was to box out the very first part of the reply and then enter a new quote tag at the start of the next reply... I could enter the quote number every time, but that wouldn't be simple.
Post edited December 04, 2011 by elus89
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
elus89: mewhat.

Second, in that same clause it says "red cross on a white background AND the words" not or the words, therefore distinguishing the emblem in the way that I specified.
No. It says that both symbol and the words (red cross) are protected. you seemed to suggest that RC symbol and RC are together. No. Red cross the symbol is protected. And the words Red cross is protected (and it goes to other languages too not only English)
they do not need to be together.

Lastly, the use of the emblem in Canada uses the exact terms "No person in connection with a business," whereas I would argue that the red cross is not used to associate with a business, it is just within the fiction of the game world.
Video game is a commercial product. if it was maybe a free product... that would be different. it is with connection of business as game is a commercial product.

As far as the logic goes, I was referring to the "'plus' sign" and "blood" argument, which I will stick to rigidly as far as a simple red cross goes (without the word and white background).
but before Red Cross the symbol was not used like that.
why not equal sign?
i mean then blood equals health right?
your logic is forced. I understand where you are getting it from but because of RC you can make that argument.

(The purpose of the red cross in the games is to heal (reduce suffering) whether in game or in war.)
Exactly. But purpose of Red Cross is much bigger than healing in game. that's why they do not want the symbol to be overused for everything.
(The time-frame for when the symbol was used previously does not matter... at least as far as the singularity of the red cross without the white background and words "Red Cross".)
You said that the symbol existed before RC so why should they claim it now. the timeframe matters because they used that symbol for 150 years.
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: 1. no. we create suffering in game. killing people, monsters. even if they are bad.


2. that was over a century ago! Then took the symbol upon themselves. 150 years ago.

3. It is not a trademark. it is something much bigger protected under geneva convention. By stylizing you are making it harder to understand. The symbols are simple because whether rain or sun, or night or day people can see the symbol. adding shit to it will make it less visible.
4.
No. The symbol is NOT A TRADEMARK, is not flag, is not coats of arms.
1. This is a similar thing the RC is proposing in this law they want to make happen. Do you actually think killing aliens/zombies in a game is a bad thing to the bits of data themselves on the screen?

2. If the symbol was created/established/used by others before the RC then the original creators lay claim to it, not the RC....unless they were given or signed over the rights...even if it was long ago this had to happen or RC can't tell people what to do with the symbol. And if as you claim the symbol was made by others long ago then it has already become public domain(even if RC started using it) as if the creators didn't assign it to another group upon stopping using it themselves then the new "owner"(RC) doesn't really own it at all.

3. Regardless of use by a company for profit or a charity or aid group like RC it's still a Trademark. Also by stylizing it the symbol could be left the same basic shape and color.....just the words Red Cross added to differentiate it from other similar marks, allowing other uses like in games of the more basic cross symbol while RC used the new(although nearly identical to the naked eye) one just fine. And no, adding the words Red Cross to the inisde of the cross wouldn't make a still red & STILL cross shaped red cross less visible.

4. Again, yes it is.
Post edited December 03, 2011 by GameRager
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
elus89: mewhat.

Second, in that same clause it says "red cross on a white background AND the words" not or the words, therefore distinguishing the emblem in the way that I specified.
avatar
lukaszthegreat: No. It says that both symbol and the words (red cross) are protected. you seemed to suggest that RC symbol and RC are together. No. Red cross the symbol is protected. And the words Red cross is protected (and it goes to other languages too not only English)
they do not need to be together.

Lastly, the use of the emblem in Canada uses the exact terms "No person in connection with a business," whereas I would argue that the red cross is not used to associate with a business, it is just within the fiction of the game world.
Video game is a commercial product. if it was maybe a free product... that would be different. it is with connection of business as game is a commercial product.

As far as the logic goes, I was referring to the "'plus' sign" and "blood" argument, which I will stick to rigidly as far as a simple red cross goes (without the word and white background).
but before Red Cross the symbol was not used like that.
why not equal sign?
i mean then blood equals health right?
your logic is forced. I understand where you are getting it from but because of RC you can make that argument.

(The purpose of the red cross in the games is to heal (reduce suffering) whether in game or in war.)
Exactly. But purpose of Red Cross is much bigger than healing in game. that's why they do not want the symbol to be overused for everything.
(The time-frame for when the symbol was used previously does not matter... at least as far as the singularity of the red cross without the white background and words "Red Cross".)
You said that the symbol existed before RC so why should they claim it now. the timeframe matters because they used that symbol for 150 years.
My logic isn't forced. I don't need an organization to tell me that a cross stands for addition or that transfusing blood when hemorrhaging is good. An equals sign doesn't make sense because you're not 'summing' health, you're 'adding' it.

In legal terms, my argument is sound, but you're probably right about their argument of "the words aren't needed". I still think it's too vague though, as all it would require is a medical kit painted white with ANY red cross to make the confusion, whether the Geneva Convention has a problem with that or not.

But I think that it's crucial that in the realm of fiction is be associated as the creator pleases. How would one make war movies which involve the Red Cross symbol otherwise?
Post edited December 03, 2011 by elus89
Posted December 03, 2011
How about a red cross within an upward pointing red arrow as one symbol? This would work possibly.
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
GameRager: [1. This is a similar thing the RC is proposing in this law they want to make happen. Do you actually think killing aliens/zombies in a game is a bad thing to the bits of data themselves on the screen?

2. If the symbol was created/established/used by others before the RC then the original creators lay claim to it, not the RC....unless they were given or signed over the rights...even if it was long ago this had to happen or RC can't tell people what to do with the symbol. And if as you claim the symbol was made by others long ago then it has already become public domain(even if RC started using it) as if the creators didn't assign it to another group upon stopping using it themselves then the new "owner"(RC) doesn't really own it at all.

3. Regardless of use by a company for profit or a charity or aid group like RC it's still a Trademark. Also by stylizing it the symbol could be left the same basic shape and color.....just the words Red Cross added to differentiate it from other similar marks, allowing other uses like in games of the more basic cross symbol while RC used the new(although nearly identical to the naked eye) one just fine. And no, adding the words Red Cross to the inisde of the cross wouldn't make a still red & STILL cross shaped red cross less visible.

4. Again, yes it is.
1. Is RC proposing a law or more like guidelines. from the article it looks like they are merely investigating the issue. and no i do not think that's bad. never said that

2. The symbol is legally established as belonging to Red Cross which was done 150 years ago. It is legally theirs.

3. It is not a trademark. Read what the symbol is. why it does not fall under a trademark. it is protected under geneva convention which goes beyond trademarks law. please read about the subject more. it could be argued under trademarks in the courth but it is not trademark (for many reasons one is that you have to defend trademark or you will lose it. second is that trademarks are national and has to be registered in every country where they are used. red cross is above that)
Red Cross is english. it must be internationally recognized symbol. can't add foreing language to the symbol. and why only english. should every country have their own symbol? that will create problems.

4. no it is not. go read about what RC is before speaking.
avatar
GameRager: How about a red cross within an upward pointing red arrow as one symbol? This would work possibly.
why change it? so games could use the cross symbol on health packs?
avatar
elus89: My logic isn't forced. I don't need an organization to tell me that a cross stands for addition or that transfusing blood when hemorrhaging is good. An equals sign doesn't make sense because you're not 'summing' health, you're 'adding' it.
but they did. The reason why you connected it is because of RC. it is part of our culture. before that it was on flags, on family crescents and nobody associated it with health.
and equal works too...
this is health pack it equals health.

In legal terms, my argument is sound, but you're probably right about their argument of "the words aren't needed". I still think it's too vague though, as all it would require is a medical kit painted white with ANY red cross to make the confusion, whether the Geneva Convention has a problem with that or not.
i think that is what RC had problem with. Health packs which were white and had red cross. not just the cross sign.

But I think that it's crucial that in the realm of fiction is be associated as the creator pleases. How would one make war movies which involve the Red Cross symbol otherwise?
normally? RC seems from the article not to have problem with people using their symbol. but by misusing it everywhere (wiki has article about that) so war game having RC ambulances... i believe they are fine with it.
RC symbol on health bonus or simply representing health in World War 4 game? that might be an issue.
Post edited December 03, 2011 by lukaszthegreat
Posted December 03, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: why change it? so games could use the cross symbol on health packs?
avatar
elus89: My logic isn't forced. I don't need an organization to tell me that a cross stands for addition or that transfusing blood when hemorrhaging is good. An equals sign doesn't make sense because you're not 'summing' health, you're 'adding' it.

but they did. The reason why you connected it is because of RC. it is part of our culture. before that it was on flags, on family crescents and nobody associated it with health.
and equal works too...
this is health pack it equals health.

In legal terms, my argument is sound, but you're probably right about their argument of "the words aren't needed". I still think it's too vague though, as all it would require is a medical kit painted white with ANY red cross to make the confusion, whether the Geneva Convention has a problem with that or not.

i think that is what RC had problem with. Health packs which were white and had red cross. not just the cross sign.

But I think that it's crucial that in the realm of fiction is be associated as the creator pleases. How would one make war movies which involve the Red Cross symbol otherwise?

normally? RC seems from the article not to have problem with people using their symbol. but by misusing it everywhere (wiki has article about that) so war game having RC ambulances... i believe they are fine with it.
RC symbol on health bonus or simply representing health in World War 4 game? that might be an issue.
I'd like to apologize a bit for being so bullish, the context of the thread has me frustrated with the Red Cross, but forgetting the significance and status of the symbol pushed me to make some ignorant claims. I still have trust in my logic though, I've probably had some problem with the terms surrounding the Red Cross' status since I've been aware of them, and this could be a good chance to put forth why. (I don't know that I'll complete that line of thought yet)

You can see some of the changes I've made in previous posts in brackets.

Again with the plus symbol versus the equals symbol, the plus symbol works better in at least these two ways:

1. Plus infers an action, 'addition', whereas equals is more a placeholder.

2. The plus sign looks somewhat better. There's no freestanding space.

(optional) An equals sign looks like two parallel shots in a shmup. =D


As far as the Red Cross deciding when the usage of the sign is appropriate within fiction, I disagree. If we could ever imply the Red Cross were somehow 'bad' as an organization, or whatever (follow me here that the Red Cross is made up of people and disregard the (possible) purity of their ideology), we should be allowed to do that.

Lest we give organizations like the UN and the Red Cross cult-like status.

I'd also like to point out that, partially in reference to to the context of timeframe, red crosses could be a universal sign for health without the Red Cross's organization or their input in wars. Part of the reason I believe this, is that, especially in the early age of gaming, symbolism was crucial. I prefer red crosses to hearts, and they're also easier to create (less pixels). Also, the entry of a medical kit as popular consumer and company unit. Maybe it could have been an 'H' sign though. Are you aware of any restriction on that sign?

As far as the importance of context behind the Geneva Convention's decision on the symbolism's timeframe and why I would argue, through societal precedent, otherwise (and I think they would, in the modern age, agree). I'll start with a couple entries:

1. The rediscovery of symbolism as art (especially around the time of Andy Warhol).

2. The ubiquity of white paint. They might have not recognized the issue at the time, but white has obvious practical value.

3. The need for common access to health. It's always been important, but perhaps they wouldn't have put the terms for a monopoly on the sign if they recognized the need for a common symbol outside of war situations.

4. This has a bit less to do with timeframe, but: Giving a single organization all of the power over the symbol (even if they're only allowed to use it contextually). I'm not entirely sure how to solve this (registering health units based on guidelines?), but I think we can see from this example thread the problem of giving them too much power. I suppose the relevance to the timeframe could be in relation to USA's Anti-trust laws.

P.S. You pointed out the previous use, in flags and emblems. I doubt the usage of such emblems has stopped since the inception of the red cross. For example, the flag of England is still "a red cross on a white field".

P.S.S. While I don't like the monopoly over the Red Cross, I can understand the decision (they felt they needed to protect something for international recognition). I certainly wouldn't want to be the one charged with finding the appropriate symbol, it would be quite a difficult process, no doubt. Though I might be able to tell what I prefer and what some of the terms should or should not be :D.
Post edited December 04, 2011 by elus89
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: 1. Is RC proposing a law or more like guidelines. from the article it looks like they are merely investigating the issue. and no i do not think that's bad. never said that

2. The symbol is legally established as belonging to Red Cross which was done 150 years ago. It is legally theirs.

3. It is not a trademark. Read what the symbol is. why it does not fall under a trademark. it is protected under geneva convention which goes beyond trademarks law. please read about the subject more. it could be argued under trademarks in the courth but it is not trademark (for many reasons one is that you have to defend trademark or you will lose it. second is that trademarks are national and has to be registered in every country where they are used. red cross is above that)
Red Cross is english. it must be internationally recognized symbol. can't add foreing language to the symbol. and why only english. should every country have their own symbol? that will create problems.

4. no it is not. go read about what RC is before speaking.

5. why change it? so games could use the cross symbol on health packs?

6. but they did. The reason why you connected it is because of RC. it is part of our culture. before that it was on flags, on family crescents and nobody associated it with health.
and equal works too...
this is health pack it equals health.

7. i think that is what RC had problem with. Health packs which were white and had red cross. not just the cross sign.

8. normally? RC seems from the article not to have problem with people using their symbol. but by misusing it everywhere (wiki has article about that) so war game having RC ambulances... i believe they are fine with it.
RC symbol on health bonus or simply representing health in World War 4 game? that might be an issue.
1. It seemed you were inferring it, and if you weren't then my mistake. But as for RC, you can guess that if these "guidelines" start getting accepted by people and groups than game companies(whether it's the law or not) will start towing the line to get sales and not get any bad PR(well some will anyways.).

2. So no one ever used a red colored cross in history to represent themselves before? Are you certain?

3. It is technically a trademark, regardless of what RC calls it, by what it is used for. As for language on the symbol, why not english? AFAIK there are several english words used in other countries where there are no translated equivalents(names for example). At the very least they could use just the letters R and C which are pretty much drawn the same everywhere.

4. Again technically it could be called one by what it's used for/what purpose it has when used by the RC.

5. I suggested that symbol could be used in games, not by the RC(i.e. games themselves could use a red plus inside an up pointed arrow, not RC).

6. I know 6 isn't to me but again, if others used it before RC than RC possibly doesn't own the red plus(by itself) symbol legally unless those groups allowed them to use it.

7. If they only had problems with plus sign on white background then why did they ask games not to use the red plus sign by itself either, if they only lay claim to the red plus sign combined with white background design?

8.Both are media/fiction about war though. So why can one form of media use the symbol(movies) and not the other(games)?
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
Delixe: I don't wish ill on anyone but I fucking hope Brian Crecente has an accident. A bad one. Seriously why would you as a gamer give this any attention?

Do you hate games? Yes is the only answer that would justfy publishing that. The Red Cross do wonderful work around the world but they have no business looking at games. NONE. Calling games like Call of Duty war crime trainers is beyond belief. This should have just disappeared but no Kotaku have run with it (Think of the pagehits!!!), Crecente is a nasty little man who is payed a lot of money to talk about an industry he hates with a passion. Games Journalism eh?
I can understand you being annoyed , .. but dont you think you may be overeacting just a teeny weeny bit ?

Nothing will come of it , we have heard it all before and besides there is way to much big money involved in video games now , which equals powerful rich people with alot to lose ;) Which means they wont if you get my meaning.

.. but yeah its really annoying for sure !
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
summitus: I can understand you being annoyed , .. but dont you think you may be overeacting just a teeny weeny bit ?
I was absolutely, totally exagerrating when I said I wished an accident on him. Given the reaction to Jeremy Clarkson's comments over the last week I should have minded my words. I was a little taken aback that people thought I was being entirely serious saying that espeically given my posting history here.

That said I stand by everything I said about Kotaku and I feel vindicated in the fact the majority of the gaming media have chosen not to give this stupid story any attention. Kotaku and the Escapist are the only ones to run with it, both of which are sites with questionable management. Crecente put this article on the site purely to attract attention and stir up anger and clearly yes I helped there. Doesn't change the fact Kotaku are the Daily Mail of games journulizim.
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
GameRager: 2. So no one ever used a red colored cross in history to represent themselves before? Are you certain?
I didn't say that. I actually said opposite, that the symbol existed before and it was not associated with health.

3. It is technically a trademark, regardless of what RC calls it, by what it is used for. As for language on the symbol, why not english? AFAIK there are several english words used in other countries where there are no translated equivalents(names for example). At the very least they could use just the letters R and C which are pretty much drawn the same everywhere.
it is not trademark GR. It is a symbol protected under geneva convention. There are also separate federal laws governing the use of the symbol in USA for example.
Why english. it is not even the most spoken language on earth. The symbol is international, can't contain foregin words. it is not English centered organization. And RC is meaningless as for example Red Cross is called Czerwony krzyz in poland. We can't have symbol with letters because those letters would be foreign in countries where english is not native language.

4. Again technically it could be called one by what it's used for/what purpose it has when used by the RC.
Nope. look above. it is governed by completely different laws and legislation. It is not even copyrighted.

5. I suggested that symbol could be used in games, not by the RC(i.e. games themselves could use a red plus inside an up pointed arrow, not RC).
Plus sign is alright. red cross on white background is RC symbol and cannot be used. it got removed from Saw movie poster for example

6. I know 6 isn't to me but again, if others used it before RC than RC possibly doesn't own the red plus(by itself) symbol legally unless those groups allowed them to use it.
It does own it. Geneva convention. 1860s. dozen countries signed.
Trademarks in USA which were created before 1906 can contain the cross. after that it is forbidden under federal law (and it is not trademark infrigment)

7. If they only had problems with plus sign on white background then why did they ask games not to use the red plus sign by itself either, if they only lay claim to the red plus sign combined with white background design?
Did they ask that? or red cross on white background? the red cross on green background is alright.

8.Both are media/fiction about war though. So why can one form of media use the symbol(movies) and not the other(games)?
It can be used where it is appropriate. It is about misuse. game about WW2 can have ambulances with the cross.
But if it is featured where it is not appropriate then they have a problem. Like on movie poster for Saw.
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
summitus: I can understand you being annoyed , .. but dont you think you may be overeacting just a teeny weeny bit ?
avatar
Delixe: I was absolutely, totally exagerrating when I said I wished an accident on him. Given the reaction to Jeremy Clarkson's comments over the last week I should have minded my words. I was a little taken aback that people thought I was being entirely serious saying that espeically given my posting history here.

That said I stand by everything I said about Kotaku and I feel vindicated in the fact the majority of the gaming media have chosen not to give this stupid story any attention. Kotaku and the Escapist are the only ones to run with it, both of which are sites with questionable management. Crecente put this article on the site purely to attract attention and stir up anger and clearly yes I helped there. Doesn't change the fact Kotaku are the Daily Mail of games journulizim.
Ahh well thats a relief ! :-) ... Funny thing for me though , I've never ever read anything on Kotaku until now ! lol
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
elus89: As far as the Red Cross deciding when the usage of the sign is appropriate within fiction, I disagree. If we could ever imply the Red Cross were somehow 'bad' as an organization, or whatever (follow me here that the Red Cross is made up of people and disregard the (possible) purity of their ideology), we should be allowed to do that.
you are allowed to do that. You can criticize RC, make a movie about how bad they are and use their symbol (assuming of course those are not total lies. you can't do that for completely different reasons) it was about misues. aka using the symbol where it is not appropriate.

I'd also like to point out that, partially in reference to to the context of timeframe, red crosses could be a universal sign for health without the Red Cross's organization or their input in wars. Part of the reason I believe this, is that, especially in the early age of gaming, symbolism was crucial. I prefer red crosses to hearts, and they're also easier to create (less pixels). Also, the entry of a medical kit as popular consumer and company unit. Maybe it could have been an 'H' sign though. Are you aware of any restriction on that sign?
On "H"? the letter cannot be trademark but design can. For hallmark network i think their symbol is H.
its not the plus sign which is a problem. it is red cross on white background which is protected.
http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Medkit
that is the problem. First aid kits with the symbol has to have permission from RC. I doubt valve ever got permission to do that. so you can have green crosses, dark red crosses but red cross on white background is a problem.

As far as the importance of context behind the Geneva Convention's decision on the symbolism's timeframe and why I would argue, through societal precedent, otherwise (and I think they would, in the modern age, agree). I'll start with a couple entries:

1. The rediscovery of symbolism as art (especially around the time of Andy Warhol).

2. The ubiquity of white paint. They might have not recognized the issue at the time, but white has obvious practical value.

3. The need for common access to health. It's always been important, but perhaps they wouldn't have put the terms for a monopoly on the sign if they recognized the need for a common symbol outside of war situations.

4. This has a bit less to do with timeframe, but: Giving a single organization all of the power over the symbol (even if they're only allowed to use it contextually). I'm not entirely sure how to solve this (registering health units based on guidelines?), but I think we can see from this example thread the problem of giving them too much power. I suppose the relevance to the timeframe could be in relation to USA's Anti-trust laws.
I am not sure what you are saying here but i just answer the last part. Why is that an organization cannot have all the power over a symbol? don't understand a logic.
doesn't country have all the power over its symbols
doesn't company have all the power over its symbols
don't cities have power over their symbols

Red cross on white background belongs to RC. They fully control it, they have the right. Its other people like Valve for example abusing the symbol believing it is somehow a public domain. it is not.

P.S. You pointed out the previous use, in flags and emblems. I doubt the usage of such emblems has stopped since the inception of the red cross. For example, the flag of England is still "a red cross on a white field".
no it did not stop. in USA any trademarks made before 1906 with red cross on white background are legal. anything afterwards is not.

P.S.S. While I don't like the monopoly over the Red Cross, I can understand the decision (they felt they needed to protect something for international recognition). I certainly wouldn't want to be the one charged with finding the appropriate symbol, it would be quite a difficult process, no doubt. Though I might be able to tell what I prefer and what some of the terms should or should not be :D.
You can't have cocacola or pepsi signs in a game without approval of the companies. but you say you should be able to use like you want RC symbol?
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: 1. I didn't say that. I actually said opposite, that the symbol existed before and it was not associated with health.

2. it is not trademark GR. It is a symbol protected under geneva convention. There are also separate federal laws governing the use of the symbol in USA for example.

Nope. look above. it is governed by completely different laws and legislation. It is not even copyrighted.

3. Plus sign is alright. red cross on white background is RC symbol and cannot be used. it got removed from Saw movie poster for example

4. It does own it. Geneva convention. 1860s. dozen countries signed.
Trademarks in USA which were created before 1906 can contain the cross. after that it is forbidden under federal law (and it is not trademark infrigment)

5. Did they ask that? or red cross on white background? the red cross on green background is alright.

6. It can be used where it is appropriate. It is about misuse. game about WW2 can have ambulances with the cross.
But if it is featured where it is not appropriate then they have a problem. Like on movie poster for Saw.
1. My mistake then. I wrote that bit before reading the rest of your post and replying to it.

2. It's a "Trademark" in the technical sense, not the definitive sense(i.e. a corporate Tm), in how it is used and what it is. Not a corporate TM in that sense but similar enough to be technically a sort of TM. It's hard to explain what I mean I guess but you get the gist i'm trying to put across?

3. Watch them bitch about just a plus symbol by itself next, if they haven't yet already.

4. The Geneva Convention doesn't constitute transfer of ownership from whoever made it originally though, afaik.

5. I think they claimed the plus sign by itself as well(red plus color).

6. Then why not allow it on life-saving medkits and health supplies in games? Is that not a use for which the RC could be in ageement?
Post edited December 04, 2011 by GameRager
Posted December 04, 2011
avatar
summitus: I can understand you being annoyed , .. but dont you think you may be overeacting just a teeny weeny bit ?
avatar
Delixe: I was absolutely, totally exagerrating when I said I wished an accident on him. Given the reaction to Jeremy Clarkson's comments over the last week I should have minded my words. I was a little taken aback that people thought I was being entirely serious saying that espeically given my posting history here.

That said I stand by everything I said about Kotaku and I feel vindicated in the fact the majority of the gaming media have chosen not to give this stupid story any attention. Kotaku and the Escapist are the only ones to run with it, both of which are sites with questionable management. Crecente put this article on the site purely to attract attention and stir up anger and clearly yes I helped there. Doesn't change the fact Kotaku are the Daily Mail of games journulizim.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-12-02-should-video-games-respect-international-war-crimes-law

whatever kotaku does, whether it is, does not change the fact that not once you explained why they should not report it. you said why RC shouldn't be doing what they do but not why Kotaku should stay silent and not to report gaming news
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Kotaku have crossed the line(123 posts)(123 posts)
(123 posts)