Geneva Convention Violation

[dino_inc]

From today's patch notes: "Fixed a Geneva Convention violation (by replacing red crosses in graphics)."

I have to say, the most entertaining part of today's patch notes was learning that Stardew Valley has violated the Geneva Convention for years.

Also, if you missed the announcement from the Steam Group, patch notes here: https://steamcommunity.com/games/413150#announcements/detail/2485320030689337428

[Ambushbob]

wait what?

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Ambushbob:

wait what?

The Red Cross symbol is a registered Trademark of the International Red Cross organization, and using it without permission is a copyright violation.

There was a similar correction in Rimworld some months ago. I've noticed that video games have, for some time now, replaced the Red Cross "first aid" symbol with a Green Cross in many instances (Just Cause 2, for example, in 2010).

InB4 someone pretends to get angry about this extremely minor graphics change. :b

[Dr_Shadox]

LOL realy ? it that a joke ? xD

I mean wth , the red cross is a common symbol for healing center, it's a shame "they" ask for change that...

It's crazy

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I am angry, sir. I am angry and ENRAGED! Enraged and absolutely LIVID! And hostile, and many other adjectives that describe being in a foul mood. Because my precious red cross, which I never even noticed in game, has been replaced by a leafy green, less noticeable cross.

This ruffles my jimmies something right fierce with a passion. And I will not stand for this nonsense that offends sensibilities I didn't know I had ANY LONGER!

I have carefully cleared my table of breakable items and stuff that would make a mess so that I may flip it with much aggression and pomp. Let my statement of dissent go on the record for its epressive nature and vicious tonal composition that inform you just how utterly emotionally compromised this situation has made me.




Also, it's always funny to see people/companies react to the whole Red Cross copyright thing. Its unenforceable.

[liosalpha]

Next up the cross its self is being trademaked by the pope.

[-Na Shagul-]

I can't say I'm surprised, the same thing happened to Prison Architect.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by AdmiralTigerclaw:

Also, it's always funny to see people/companies react to the whole Red Cross copyright thing. Its unenforceable.

Er, no. The whole point of registering a trademark is to make infringement enforceable.

[I Kinda Fail]

The game Left 4 Dead has red crosses on the med kits. Why is this allowed in that game, but not in SV?

[dino_inc]

Originally posted by I Kinda Fail:

The game Left 4 Dead has red crosses on the med kits. Why is this allowed in that game, but not in SV?

It's not allowed, it's simply a matter of it never being brought to their attention or them not caring enough to change it. There's little to no consequences for it being used in a video game (the Red Cross organization does have legal grounds for a lawsuit if they cared to do so), but it is still technically illegal. Changing it in Stardew Valley is effectively a show of good faith and/or motivated by legal threats, as the red cross trademark is protected by international treaty and is trademarked in order to not diminish its significance, which has already happened significantly.

[DasaKamov]

What dino_inc said. I'll add that it's probably pointless to demand that older games change their first-aid-symbols when it's obvious that the developers don't have anyone assigned to those old games.

[Nicolas.Stabilito]

HI !

[liosalpha]

Originally posted by I Kinda Fail:

.... and is trademarked in order to not diminish its significance, which has already happened significantly.

What is being gained here in significance?
I can get why they dont wanne have the logo on every rl heath related things. But in games or arts in general. Is it allowed too be reference it in literal fiction or is that alos a no go?

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by liosalpha:

What is being gained here in significance?

It's less a question of "what is gained by enforcing the recognisance" and more, "what is lost by NOT enforcing the significance of the symbol".

In general terms, using a protected symbol gives the impression that the legal owner of that symbol is officially endorsing whatever product/service that bears that symbol.

As a more hypothetical scenario, if a video game developer were to create a sinister villain in their game, and then make that villain's appearance match that of a protected symbol, the legal owner of that symbol might suffer real-world consequences -- for example, if someone made a video game where doctors and nurses were part of a secret society that was sterilizing/euthanizing the general population, that could have real-world consequences when international aid workers are already deliberately targeted, kidnapped and killed by people espousing those unfounded conspiracy theories.

[liosalpha]

That is prity far fetched.
Its as if your are wondering what Utha is like as a none amarican and starting up farcry 5 for a realistic depiction.
Or starting up wolfenstein for a nice impresion of modern germany.

random thought thou is the amarican flag not trademarked?

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by liosalpha:

random thought thou is the amarican flag not trademarked?

Nations cannot file a trademark claim on their national symbols, as nations are not private entities.