Do not use "+" sign for health or Red Cross will get you!

Read it here: http://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-broke-the-geneva-conventions/

According to the story, Prison Architect developers were contacted by the Red Cross to remove the + sign from their game.

But I am surprised this hit the news just now since there are tons of games that use + sign to represent health.

Team Fortress 2 (2007)


Left 4 Dead (2008)


Honestly, the list could go on. I am pretty sure some indie games use this symbol as well.

 

Interesting.. I had no idea this was a thing. I wonder if Overwatch's would be applicable as the cross on those are oddly shaped

 

Fascinating. I thought it was a bag of baloney when I first saw the post, but it seems like a legit thing. And from what I can tell, it's not even that it's specifically a trademark that belongs to the Red Cross organization, but a reserved symbol under international treaty loosely describing "a red cross on a white background" with proportions and specifics intentionally left vague "to ensure universal respect for and to avoid abuse of the emblem intended to serve as the humanitarian Red Cross symbol."

What makes me wonder, then, is why protection of the symbol is so grossly unenforced, but exercised in this specific case?

 

Note it's a red cross that is against the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to us as civilians, unless you live somewhere like the U.K. where they adapted Convention provisions into law. Given that there isn't a law in every nation to allow them to enforce it, that might help explain why it has been. Another possibility is that you've gotta start somewhere, and Prison Architect just happened to be theirs.

 

In b4 twitter rage.

 

Prison Architect had the least funded legal team is my guess.

 

Italic, so no problem

 

Also, not a white background.

Actually, they passed 25 million dollars in revenue back in July, so there might be some money for lawyers too.

Might be the theme?

 

Ahh the insanity of exclusive ownership strikes again.

 

None of the examples above were made by developers from the UK, where this is a law. Except for Prison Architect.
It's not some conspiracy to gain money, it's just regional laws.

GTA (Another UK based game), uses a white cross on a green background for health kits.

See 'Restricted use of the emblems' at the bottom of the page:
http://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/Who-we-are/The-international-Movement/The-emblem

 

This isn't about exclusive ownership, this is about preventing war crimes. The article sited examples of when people used red cross symbols to commit atrocities. It is insane, however, to go after a video game. Perhaps someone at IRC thought it was an atrocious game.

 

Oh yeah... didn't think of that :x

 

Well this is a problem. With my code coloring options in Visual Studio every single formula involving addition in my code is now in contravention with the Geneva Convention...

 

Which would actually explain why the green cross is used pretty much universally here for first aid kits, medical vehciles and the like.

You learn something every day.

 

"The UK is a police state." - A gentlemen I met from the UK.

 

Well I kind of agree with this because some people are a) pretty dumb these days at times and b) although it's a game, people often do learn things from games (which is scary).

So perhaps it's relevant despite being in a game. In any case minor creativity easily sidesteps the issue. Slight tint would do it. A moderately mauve cross, perhaps.

Actually it's pretty silly going after a game. Sounds like legal team wanted to justify existence.

 

Did he have a split personality? since I'm having plural problems...

 

Guess i'll have to use the division symbol lol

 

What if you are making a WWII game with military ambulances?

 

Not sure. On one hand it would be fair that you could render something historically accurate, but on the other hand, if there is a trademark fairness and accuracy won't really matter.
I still think that Prison Architect has this problem due to theme - and they are based in the UK, which I believe was mentioned has a law enforcing the Geneve Convention. Might be relevant info further up.

 

this seems asinine for Red Cross to sic lawyers on video game developers over a symbol. so stupid.

 

Well they didn't take legal action against devs. So that's nice of them.

 

It's a pretty important symbol. The more I read into this the more I'm agreeing that we shouldn't use it. (Unless it really is used as a label on non combatants in a war game.)

The issue is not the use of the symbol. It's associating the symbol with something other then it's purpose under the Genova convention.

 

It's a trademark. Within the United States they are required to defend it. It might be required elsewhere too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights

 

This is much more then a trademark issue. And the red cross isn't actually covered by trademark law, its covered under the Geneva conventions. Trade marks are all about preventing consumer confusion when buying stuff. The Geneva conventions is about protecting noncombatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war.

The Red Cross mark won't loose its protection if it isn't defended. That's not really the issue here. The issue is diluting and distorting the meaning of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is a symbol used for wartime hospitals and medical staff. That's it. No one can legally use it for anything else, anywhere in the world. Its basically a 'don't shoot me' symbol. Anyone can use it, as long as they are performing legitimate war time non combat medical service.

The fact that it hasn't been defended in video games historically is probably more of an oversight then anything else. Now that people are aware of it, developers everywhere are pulling it from games. This isn't some minor IP spat that could be solved with paying for a license.

All that said, I am curious if its legit to represent a military hospital in a video game with a red cross. I'm sure the lawyers will figure that out scene.

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that on new versions/re-releases of the classic DOOM games that the red cross has now been changed to a red and white pill. This has been going on since 2010.

More info: http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cerwym/blog/doom-2-red-cross-edit/51543/

 

This.

All this.

Btw, everyone who is getting huffy at the RED CROSS should really take a moment and re-evaluate their life choices.

Seriously, it's the Red Cross. Stop. Just stop.

 

Speaking of which the symbol is all over the Asset Store.

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/5880

With the sheer number of games that likely have the symbol I have to wonder if it wouldn't be easier for them to simply adopt a new symbol than try to eliminate its use in video games.

 

I don't think this is the crisis that the news is trying to make it out to be.

It most likely has more to do with the fact that the Red Cross is very old and is playing catch up with the times, than anything sinister.

 

Right. I don't think anyone who isn't trying to be a conspiracy theorist would accuse them of being sinister. You might be able to make a case on them being incompetent though if they only just now are getting around to having video games not show the symbols. How many years has it been now since it started showing up in FPSes?

Either way it's a bit too early to see where this leads. The featured article is only a few days old.

 

lucky developers free coverage and there is nothing called bad publicity.

 

That would probably require another set of Geneva conventions. Which is only likely to come after another major global conflict.

While the conditions seem to be pretty ripe for another world war in the next decade or so, I'd prefer if we didn't have one.

Edit: Note there are two other symbols used by the Red Cross, which are the Red Cresent and the Red Crystal. But I don't see the Red Cross going away anytime soon.

 

On a related note, most guns used in video games are copyrighted too.

 

There was some thread about that somewhere here a few years ago, how devs had to pay the gun manf's loads of dough for licenses to use their gun names, then found there was some loophole that allowed them to use them without permission or something.

 

Not even close. Use in video games isn't the problem they're solving, it's long term dilution of the meaning of the symbol. That hasn't happened in any real significance yet, and as long as action is taken (which is exactly what's happening) it won't become a problem.

Compare that against coming up with a new symbol, or adopting one of the other existing ones for primary use, and then getting 60+ years of historical recognition behind it. I'm pretty sure that asking video games to stop using it incorrectly is the easier of the two.

If you're representing what the symbol is meant to represent then I'd imagine it's fine. At the very least I'm pretty sure that war movies use it more-or-less appropriately on a regular basis, and I suspect they wouldn't otherwise. (Maybe that's naive of me...)

In any case, using it properly in any form of media would reinforce it's meaning rather than dilute it. So if the goal is to protect it then it'd help rather than hinder.

 

Actually, furthering that... from the OP's quote the issue is:

Depending on your usage it might be simple to get authorisation. Your national Red Cross body might have a process for this, or there might even be public letters or announcements or such stating how the symbol can and can not be used in media. After all, considering that the goal is to protect the meaning of the symbol it's in their best interest to have it used appropriately in publicly visible stuff.

Edit: In fact, with a quick search I found official rationale, usage guidelines, and exactly who to contact if I want to use the red cross symbol here, all from the national body responsible for it.

 

I'm mostly worried about what will happen to the games that are no longer actively supported by their developers. Or may not even have a developer now. Will they just be ignored? Will the developers that are still in business have to invest resources into creating new patches? Will they be taken down from stores like Steam if the developer is no longer around?

 

so, they're trying to prevent something from happening in the future by stomping on peoples use of a red symbol today?...

well, who knows.. maybe we need to start banning the use of a lot things because they could misrepresent something in the future.

 

You've got the general principle. Prevention is better then a cure.

 

I better start firing up my minority report algorithms.

 

Its really no different from regulating guns, tabacco, alcohol, vehicle speed limits, or any of a thousand other things that we know cause problems if left unchecked. Sensible regulation improves everyone's lives.

Protecting the Red Cross protects aid organisations in military operations. And no matter what you think of government regulation in general, protecting wounded soldiers is a good thing. And its not like this particular regulation is especially difficult to follow, just don't use a red cross, red crescent, or red crystal. There are a thousand other symbols that you can use.

Or are you trying to tell me your video game is more important then lives?

 

I'm thinking, though. Laws do not normally work retroactively. So, in which year did UK adopt this law? Because the original Doom was released in the 1990s.

 

The Geneva conventions adopted the symbol of the Red Cross in 1864. Which predates the release of Doom by over a hundred years. I'm not sure what year the UK officially ratified the treaty, but it was certainly a long time before Doom was released.

And in the case of the Geneva convention, the laws do apply retroactively and universally. If the conventions had gone into force yesterday, it still would require removal of the Red Cross symbol from health packs in games.

This is probably of the various Red Cross agencies not taking games seriously enough to notice the violations in the 90s. Games were still a niche product then, and its likely that the circles of 'military relief agencies' and 'basement dwelling demon shooters' simply didn't overlap.

 

It's a symbol that's been internationally officially sanctioned for decades, and used for decades before that. There's plenty of cases where people are allowed to protect the usage of a symbol, a classic example today being trademarks.

And also, they're not just trying to "prevent something happening in the future". The symbol itself is entirely relevant any time there is armed conflict anywhere in the world. Actively protecting it is about keeping it that way.

On that note, before this conversation I was under a misconception about what the red cross symbol meant. Like many others I also associated it with medical aid, which is incorrect. It actually marks non-combatants in a conflict zone as an indicator that they are not to be attacked. By taking action with this game they are directly protecting the meaning of their symbol right now.

 

I sorta think it falls into "let's patent shape of a square" category. The symbol is firmly associated with medicine, first aid, medics. And not with organization of Red Cross.

Reading the original post, this is the problem:

Red cross IS a general sign of ambulances, health care, first aid, nursing and medical profession.

 

We say that. And that's what I first thought. Then I had a look around me and realised it really isn't. At least locally.

First aid stations have a white cross on a green background. Ambulances bear a weird looking stylised cross consisting of four arrow heads pointing to a central point. Defib stations have a green or red heart with a lightening symbol.

I can't speak for other countries. But locally the only time you see the Red Cross is for disaster or wartime relief efforts.

Me too. From that point alone this conversation has been super valuable. It's popped up across all of my news feeds.

 

Well, as far as I remember, every single ambulance I saw in my life had a red cross on it, and not an arrow symbol. Same applies to first aid kits, medicine lockers, etc. Must be a local thing.

Either way, the whole thing looks like the Red Cross has failed to defend their "trademark".

 

Sure. That would be valid if this was a trademark discussion. But we aren't talking trademarks here. This case bears superficial similarities to a trade mark case. But that's it.

 

Our ambulance symbol in the United States is an asterisk with the rod of Asclepius.



That said here is a Johnson & Johnson first aid kit with the Red Cross emblem on it.



Sold at Walmart.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/14984573

 

Johnson & Johnson probably has some deal. I bet it says that somewhere on the box.
edit: heck the title is "Johnson & Johnson Red Cross - Portable Travel First Aid Kit" so, yeah, they have the right to it.