Question for Blizzards legal deperment how is the baptist combat medic skin even remotely legal?

My kid is 16, and is still pretty happy to share his cookies, so, maybe you will get lucky there.

Yeah, but it COULD go either way here. The first step to fixing a problem, is admitting there is one, and well… that process is well on it’s way in the US.

The US isn’t viewing itself as perfect any more, and that is a huge step toward fixing stuff.

I remember when the US went though the “we are the good guys, so by definition, everything we do is good” stage. It was pretty ugly.

New Zealand went through a similar pain some time ago, it is turning out ok. Don’t lose hope there.

Yep it sure did.

1 Like

yeah, this has been addressed. red on blue is enough to cover them as far as the treaty is concerned, this is a bit of a troll thread. oh and just to be clear, the geneva convention also makes it illegal to target medical workers, so if you wanna start down this slippery slope then healers would need to be immortal in this game haha.

Perfection is the goal, not the state of existence.

That’s just such an awful fallacy and a terrible trap to fall into. The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

I hope so. He’s such a sweet boy. I hope to tell him when he’s a little bigger that he never has to worry because his Aunt Jenn will always be on his side. So that even if he thinks he can’t tell his mom (my sister) or his dad something, he can tell me. Does he need a ride? I’ll come get him. Did he make a mistake? I’ll help him fix it and deal with the consequences. I would have given anything for that kind of support growing up.

1 Like

Only for the people who didn’t go and read the treaty, or see the obligations on symbol protection it lays out, and what they means to local laws around the world.

That isn’t the thing. It isn’t that targeting medical workers IN the game would break the treaty. because it doesn’t.

It is that part of the treaty covers the protects which the red cross symbols have, and that they have to be encoded in local laws of each country.

Some of the countries copied the language OF the treaty, which has problems, because it has bits like.

“as to be capable of being mistaken for, or understood as referring to, one of those emblems.

And that is… well… pretty damn wide reaching.

buddy if you think the game “encourages you to shoot” medical workers, the symbol is not the issue. anyways, stop with the super nerdy trolling. I’ll admit it’s high effort trolling, but it’s still trolling, there is nothing wrong with having this symbol as it is in the game and it cannot be claimed to be the red cross symbol.

I still think blizzard and the rest of the games industry really should get together possibly with the red cross and decide on a standard symbol to use for games that cannot even remotely be confused for each other.

it’s not like our brains will break for one more symbol we have all learnt to adapt to new symbols

so there really is no need for the games industry to even be close to this protected symbol…

Frankly you guys should be able to make one of your own that convays the meaning just as clearly and people will learn if you uniformly adopt it across the industry.

I think that would be a far better solution. also those red screws on mercys wings are kinda iffy…

1 Like

“as to be capable of being mistaken for, or understood as referring to, one of those emblems.

Is PRETTY damn wide you know (by design as well, you CAN’T have people putting things on stuff which isn’t the red cross but LOOKS like it and use that for troop movements - NOR have people be like… well, the background wasn’t white, so we blew it up) .

Anyway It totally IS referring to one of the emblems, which is explicitly called out.

That is the issue, for local laws anyway. Some places copied that language.

Maybe, oh, the international medical pack symbol for instance :slight_smile: like… for med packs.

Same symbol. but green! which is also kinda weird… given it obviously refers… yeah, you know the rest.

In the end that is only your opinion. Your starting topic implies there is a technical legal issue. Again, I try to provide a straight forward-facing view to certain legal perspectives, but what I can tell you is that one of the many processes of making new content for skins or heroes in Overwatch is going through heavy legal and localization research. Jeff Kaplan has said that for any given new hero, over 200 people have some form of input to the creation of that new hero. While I don’t think that many people work on new skins, I am confident to say there is a process of legal check made to ensure their games remain in compliance with all laws their games are sold.

2 Likes

Totally.

I just find it weird that Blizzard is kinda acting a little iffy here. They usually go beyond just “legal compliance” as a benchmark.

It doesn’t seem to be the Blizzard way. But, I don’t work there, I just love their games.

Anyway, thread has run it’s useful course for SURE (and then some), so I’m out.

Still think you are awesome Wyoming, and hope you don’t think I was trolling (because I wasn’t. I just found it interesting, so I went and read the documents, and looked up ICRC’s offical view, and some of the countries local laws which they put in place as a response, and what happened with other game companies which ended up changing because of their comms with ICRC)

I’m pretty sure the “red cross symbol” as you’re describing is specifically when on a white background.

One could argue there has been many things in the last three years that has been iffy from Blizzard (Free Hong Kong, the ATVI mass layoff of 2019, Overwatch League killing third-party Esports, Diablo Immortal). Any entertainment company is going to be subjected to such scrutinity, and in the end each individual user needs to decide if their own morals conflict the with the decisions of such a company and decide to no longer do business with them or choose to continue on.

I myself choose to continue on, Blizzard is not a perfect company… period, and yes there are something things they have done that have made me personally very mad. Something like this might be an oversight, but a lot of people here are taking this way out of proportion.

I am going to be done with this topic (muting it) because I think the conversation is badly derailed. In the end… I personally (and this is my personal opinion) don’t think the skin violates any laws or copyrights.

2 Likes

100% agree!!!

Also True.

Ok, have a good one!, I’m also going to do the same.

Bro. It was a 1-2 week event skin. Not a lot of people would’ve wanted the skin in the first place, knowing the design is meh. Maybe the design of it is not the best idea, but they won’t get caught if not many people even know it exists. If it was a skin you can get at any time, then your argument here would be a lot stronger.

It’s also a war crime to mask yourself as the enemy (@Echo), use poison weapons (@ Widow/Ana), inhumane treatment (@Mei, Ashe, Torb, etc.), so it’s safe to say that Overwatch plays it fast and loose with the Geneva Convention.

Yeah, they even altered DOOM for that reason. Friggin’ DOOM, the classic game from 1993!

What is still a crime?

It’s not a crime to depict a crime.

Yeah some have modified their red-cross symbols, some haven’t. TF2 hasn’t. Overwatch hasn’t.

Halo didn’t even really remove the Red Cross symbol, in the Halo 1 remake the old textures that were in the released product had the red cross on a white background.

Then why would only SOME games change it?

Stardew Valley seemed to do it as a joke “lol, we violated the geneva conventions, ayy lmao”

The thing is a personal choice.

It’s not a law.

I assure you there are international treaties on killing people.

The Geneva Conventions were almost entirely about who can and can’t be killed in war.

If you say it doesn’t apply because it’s “in a game” well that also means it doesn’t apply to what fictional characters wear in a game.

Act suffix implies it’s legislation not a treaty, which nation’s law is that?

What specific laws?

Cite the US federal law, don’t cite the treaty, cite the law. A treaty is nothing until it is “ratified” when you ratify a treaty you pass laws to enforce the treaty.

The US ratified the Geneva Convention by adopting Military Codes of Justice as it only applies to those armed forces or combatants in a warzone, it doesn’t apply to private citizens making works of fiction.

Please cite the specific US law that infringes on people’s speech in works of fiction.

It’s NEVER been enforced.

You can’t even cite the legislation.

All the Red Cross Organization has done is persuaded people on principle to change it.

A ratified treaty IS a federal law!

But what federal law?

Please cite the law, I think you will find when you do it only applied to military personnel in combat zones and even then only to what they do in the real world, not in works of fiction.

And since you brought up constitutional law… you know the First Amendment is part of the US Constitution. And it applies here, it stops the government censoring people’s expression.

The Geneva Conventions Act 1958 isn’t any US law I can find.

Do they exist?

It doesn’t seem to be.

That’s not “asking”.

They can’t enforce non-existent laws.

Yes, and a ratified treaty supersedes any non-treaty federal law on the books. The only law higher for the US is the Constitution itself. I made NO statements as to whether this would apply to the game. Only just that as part of a ratified treaty, its terms would supersede any copyright or trademark law. A reply to the person I DIRECTLY quoted who thought it was too broad for copyright or trademark.

However, acts have been taken by the ICRC to remove the logo or substantially similar ones from video games and other media or alter the game to their standards.


Other divisions of the IRC in countries have taken legal measures:

Okay, I think it’s high time to cite that supposed federal law.

It doesn’t seem this federal law says what many have claimed that it says if it even exists.

From your own source:

Q: Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games?

A: No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.

There’s nothing left to discuss.

No need to link to sloppy journalism or reddit opinion pieces, we have a Primary Source that The Red Cross does not care about Overwatch. Overwatch is a fantasy game it’s futuristic nonsense, even set in space in some places.

Also, what I’ve been saying all along:

Q: A few media reported that certain virtual acts performed by characters in video games could amount to serious violations of the law of armed conflict. Is this correct?

A: No. Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life. A person cannot commit a war crime simply by playing a video game.

This ABSOLUTELY settles this discussion.

Game devs HAVE been sued to remove substantially similar logos by divisions of the IRC.
:laughing:

Other devs CHOSE to remove similar logos for ethical reasons. Topic author wants Blizzard to consider removing the substantially similar logo.

I responded to a different person who though it was about copyright or trademark, and it’s not. Not sure why you felt the need to reply to me, but here we are.

Blizzard has lawyers and doesn’t need your help in this matter.

What lawsuits?

Nothing has ever gone to court.