Original Post — Direct link
10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by [deleted]

[removed]

I removed your post, because you’re spreading the narrative that Red Cross is bullying anyone using the symbol. The use of the symbol is restricted as per the Geneva Convention intended to protect non-combatants. The purpose is to have an easily recognizable symbol that isn’t used out of context, and THAT is why it is protected. It’s not a company protecting their logo or trademark.

Edit: I’m also not entirely correct. See below 👇

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by [deleted]

[removed]

Take your misinformation elsewhere.

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by PilotAce200

While I cannot see the original post that you deleted, I can say that you are also not 100% correct Jacob.

Regardless of any red cross involvement or lack thereof, and regardless of GSG's reasoning, the red cross is actually trademarked in many countries, and the various "Red Cross of (insert X country)" organizations do in fact "bully" many companies into changing their medical logos, even when they are being used otherwise correctly. (Strongly worded letters is typically as far as the "bullying" goes though).

Here's a excerpt from the American red cross website: https://www.redcross.org/lp/brand-standards.html

The American Red Cross name and logo are trademarks of the American Red Cross. Our trademark rights in American Red Cross and the red cross emblem date back to 1881. With the exception of a few individuals and companies that used the Greek red cross before 1905, the American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use the Greek red cross in the United States.

And as to the comment about the purpose is to prevent the symbols use out of context, no, the protection that the organization claim and selectively enforce are infact not to prevent use out of context but to prevent all use by any person or organization not expressly authorized by the red cross from using the logo to fraudulently imply association with the red cross. Again I'll use the example of the American Red Cross because they are particularly aggressive with their enforcement.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter33&edition=prelim

United States Code, Title 18, Section 706

Whoever wears or displays the sign of the Red Cross or any insignia colored in imitation thereof for the fraudulent purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of or an agent for the American National Red Cross; or : Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross" or any combination of these words—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

The only exceptions that does not require express authorization of the Red Cross at some level are the usage by the military medical services, and any corporations that were already using the symbol prior to 1905 (Johnson & Johnson is a very prominent example).

Section 706a effectively states the same thing, but in the context of the International Red Cross, and points out that even internationally the only accepted exception is the medical services of the militaries of Geneva Convention signatory nations.

While the stated intentions of the red cross are honorable, and anyone seeking to respect those stated goals is admirable themselves, there is a lot of misinformation on the topic that comes from both sides of that issue.

Close enough, I’d say :D My issue is mainly that people tend to jump on the narrative that it’s a big bad corporation enforcing their brand, throwing lawsuits at everyone. It’s not Coca Cola going for an organic limonade stand.

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by PilotAce200

Close enough, I’d say

Had you left off that last sentence on the comment I responded too I would 100% agree, but you used the term misinformation twice in this thread yet put your own out there (presumably inadvertently).

My issue is mainly that people tend to jump on the narrative that it’s a big bad corporation enforcing their brand, throwing lawsuits at everyone. It’s not Coca Cola going for an organic limonade stand.

Fair enough, but they have been known to very selectively enforce their trademark (which contrary to popular belief, is not optional like copyrights and patents). They have been known to let particularly high level donors use the logo without the express consent that those laws often require.

I don't have an issue with an organization protecting their trademark/copyright/patent, I just have an issue when they do it selectively for blatantly obvious reasons. (Again though, defending a trademark is not actually optional at least in the US. They must defend it or lose the protections)

Edit: I should note that those mandatory enforcement terms don't apply to the red cross as their protections were explicitly granted by a separate act of Congress.

I think the last part might be vital for the aggressive impression people have apart from clickbait game journalism. AFAIK over here they are not actively investigating, but will reach out if they get a report, and ask about content. That might be different with American Red Cross.

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by PilotAce200

Close enough, I’d say

Had you left off that last sentence on the comment I responded too I would 100% agree, but you used the term misinformation twice in this thread yet put your own out there (presumably inadvertently).

My issue is mainly that people tend to jump on the narrative that it’s a big bad corporation enforcing their brand, throwing lawsuits at everyone. It’s not Coca Cola going for an organic limonade stand.

Fair enough, but they have been known to very selectively enforce their trademark (which contrary to popular belief, is not optional like copyrights and patents). They have been known to let particularly high level donors use the logo without the express consent that those laws often require.

I don't have an issue with an organization protecting their trademark/copyright/patent, I just have an issue when they do it selectively for blatantly obvious reasons. (Again though, defending a trademark is not actually optional at least in the US. They must defend it or lose the protections)

Edit: I should note that those mandatory enforcement terms don't apply to the red cross as their protections were explicitly granted by a separate act of Congress.

Also, thanks for the corrections! It’s appreciated!

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

We actually didn’t just yet. It was fixed originally on the main branch, but reappeared on the Experimental branch where the original screenshot is from. It will be fixed on Experimental when we update it.

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by Mrguy377

Yeah…except there was no new patch that added this, it was already in the game a week ago.

Calm down people. He’s actually right. The original screenshot with the red cross is from the Experimental version, while OP’s screenshot is from the live version where it’s been fixed for while.

10 months ago - /u/GSG_Jacob - Direct link

Originally posted by cowrangler

So since this guy wrote four paragraphs with links to back him up you'd look like a fool to delete his comment so you don't. I wish I could see the other guys comment you did delete. It seems like you ought to delete this one according to the logic you used for your earlier 'moderation'. I get it though, every petty manager has to exert their petty power somehow or else they'd feel useless.

Since I didn’t delete it, I guess you’re extra wrong. 😘

Also, he had some good points, why would I delete that?