Talk:Clones, rebadges and rebrands

Not sure the Kiev/Contax is a good example: the Contax factory was taken in reparations, so the first Kievs were made on the same machines, and quite possibly by some of the same people as the Contaxes; is that a copy, or a factory relocation? Someone who knows more of this history may want to edit this. --Dustin McAmera 08:11, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

I have to agree—that example just muddies the waters. Also it seems like it's worth making a distinction between "pure" rebranding (where all the cameras come off one assembly line, just with minor cosmetic differences) versus cloning/copying (e.g. the Diana Plus or the many Leica copies). I wouldn't object to splitting off those other possibilities into another article. You could check "what links here," and see if they are all cases of pure re-badging, in which case that ought to be the top paragraph. --Vox 08:31, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

The article leaves me very puzzled. For one thing, "clone" is derogatory or jokey. All right, there's no compulsion to be polite or serious all the time, but how is "clone" better than the regular word "copy"? Secondly, I don't understand the distinction the writer is making between "rebadging" and "rebranding". Thirdly, I don't understand what this piece is trying to be -- an article, or a three-in-one glossary entry? Of course there's nothing wrong about good articles starting small and perfunctory, but a good article that would encompass everything from Leica copies to Cosina's manufacture (or alleged manufacture; it would be reassuring to have some evidence rather than just hearsay) of cameras for lots of other "makers" would have to be very long. Zuleika 03:12, 29 March 2011 (PDT)