>Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse?
The important thing about the Red Cross and its brand is that they are neutral. The Genova convention declared they get a special marker, and a rule against harming them in wartime. A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection the rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross. Nor would some random soldier carrying a J&J first aid kit get any protection. In particular the risk is that the more common that symbol is, the less distinctive it is, a particularly troublesome effect during armed conflict where decisions about where to point a rifle and whether to pull a trigger are being made rapidly.
> Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?
A random hospital definitely cannot, without permission (and presumably, some covenants). And it'd definitely not be an enforceable trademark on their end so not a smart branding move anyways. It's usually not a huge deal -- in the US the hospital sign is blue with a big H. In video games you can just use red background with a white plus (but thats like, the swiss flag) Or in the case of TF2, a red (or blue) cross on a yellow circle.
It would likely help their cause if there were an alternative public domain recognized symbol. The ISO standard is apparently White cross on green background: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:E003 but pretty much nobody knows that.
> A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection the rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross.
The protective use of the Red Cross, is subject to the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, and only those rules. What any particular Red Cross organization feels is completely irrelevant. These rules allow use by one side of the conflict's own medics, among other things. There is no treating both sides rule or anything like that.
Protective use of the symbol in an inappropriate context is a war crime. As is ignoring the symbol and firing upon a protected facility.
The Geneva conventions also allow indicative use of the symbols by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organizations. It is only supposed to be used by those organizations in this indicative sense, but it is not viewed as a war crime when this is violated.
Using the symbol in a game as a generic symbol for healing or medics is wrong. Use of the the symbol in the protective fashion in video games is arguably fine, as long as the game also treats ignoring the symbol as a war crime. I'm not sure I've ever seen a game where the player gets court marshaled if they fire upon an enemy's medics wearing the red cross symbol though, which is a real problem, and dilutes the meaning of the symbol.
One weird thing here is that for example, the American Red cross licenses the use of the symbol for purposes like first aid kits very much like those found in video games. This is in addition to the well known Johnson and Johnson trademark allowing them to use it on their first aid kits too.
The First Geneva convention article 39 allows the military to order that the symbol be on equipment used by in battle are supposed to have the symbol on it, so they would very much could carry first aid kits with a red cross on it.
The Halo series quietly switched from a red cross to a red H to come into compliance (as the international Red Cross didn't gel their position on the symbol's use in videogames clearly until after the first game was released).
>It would likely help their cause if there were an alternative public domain recognized symbol. The ISO standard is apparently White cross on green background: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7010:E003 but pretty much nobody knows that.
FWIW, first aid kits in the UK almost exclusively use that symbol.
Use by organizations other than the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
The point is to strictly maintain the neutrality of the symbol in wartime and similar situations, as distinct from merely indicating (for example) an army medic of a particular country. If it ends up broadly used just to indicate 'first aid', that purpose is lost.
So, if the Red Cross (organization) is represented in a game, using their symbol is "abuse"? Would it not, rather, actually further their cause; assuming reverence is given in the game as it would be IRL?
Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse?
Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?