Talk:Leica copy

Use of "Leica copy"

Is there an "official" Camera-Wiki rule as for when to use the term "Leica copy"? I have seen many pages that state that a given camera is a Leica copy while it really is an original design. Copy is a very strong term indeed, and implies stealing intellectual property, manufacturing processes and things like reverse engineering (e.g. Fed-1).

In my opinion, a camera like the Fed-1 is truly a Leica copy, whereas a Canon-P (for example) is an original design, and therefore not a copy.

I also very strongly disagree with the fact that "twin" cameras can be called copies of one another. Twin cameras generally result from joint ventures, therefore calling one half of the twin camera a copy is a nonsense.

Anyway, these is just my point of view, I'm just trying to open a discussion here. --Fragarach 10:24, 29 February 2012 (PST)

There was also an earlier, related discussion about words like "copy" versus "clone"—but there wasn't a decisive conclusion. While the term "Leica copy" is in wide use, I do think it's worth making the distinction clearer here between "fake Leicas"; other brands which slavishly imitated Leicas; and cameras which took the Leica design or the 39mm lens mount as a jumping-off point to create wholly original products.--Vox 12:06, 29 February 2012 (PST)

Interesting discussion too! I just don't like the word "copy" because it carries a notion of illegality, as well as a notion of lack of creativity. It is widely used, though, but not so often relevantly.