View source for 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.
--[[User:Dustin McAmera|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. --[[User:Voxphoto|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. [[User:Zuleika|Zuleika]] 03:12, 29 March 2011 (PDT)
:Good point. Maybe delete the article but use the three chunks, tightened up, in as glossary items (with a link to OEM)--[[User:Heritagefutures|Heritagefutures]] 06:07, 29 March 2011 (PDT)
:: If you look at "what links here," the page mostly exists to explain the use of the word "rebadging"  or "rebranding" in other articles. It's probably not all that essential, but it's fine if it stays.

::The word "clone" is in wide enough use that I think we should acknowledge it. For example, there is a large swarm of camera models closely related to the [[Diana]] with only minor differences in cosmetics and features: The "Diana clones." Some might call the Lomography LC-A+ a clone, since it's an intentional lookalike of an earlier Lomo model. A question is where to where to draw a line between cloning and copying: There is copying to deceive the buyer (Leica clones); and cameras "closely inspired" by another model, but sold under their own brands. I think the latter possibilities might need to go into a different article. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 06:21, 29 March 2011 (PDT)
:::I don't say that we should pretend that the word "clone" doesn't exist. However, I've never encountered the term "Leica clone". I do have a book titled ''Leica Copies.'' Yes, let's consider its content for a moment. The huge majority of non-Leitz cameras that at a slight distance could pass for Leica III or similar Leitz cameras are actually FEDs and Zorkis. As these survive into the 21st century (and not as they were manufactured), we can divide them into two kinds: (a) those honestly marked "FED" or "Zorki" (whether in Roman or Cyrillic script), and (b) those with the signs of "FED" or "Zorki" removed and "Ernst Leitz Wetzlar" (and, often, swastikas and similar kitsch) instead. Of these, (a) is most often a "FED" or a "Zorki" or a "Leica copy", and (b) is most often a "fake Leica", I believe. [[User:Zuleika|Zuleika]] 06:36, 29 March 2011 (PDT)
:::: "Fake" is indeed an expressive word and makes a useful distinction. Perhaps a separate glossary entry, "fakes and forgeries" might be helpful. It's really the opposite of "rebranding" as we want to describe it here (one camera, many names) --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 08:23, 29 March 2011 (PDT)