Let's Talk About Knockoffs in the Photo Industry.

The "borrowing of designs" has always been a part of the photo gear industry. But lately, it has spread to the point where it is much more ubiquitous—including by companies who previously would not have been caught dead knocking off another company's gear.

The imitations are usually cheaper. (Otherwise why bother, right?) But for for photographers who are presumably sensitive to intellectual property rights, this gets a little more complex.

And ethics notwithstanding, there is another long-term downside to the copycats…
__________


First, some conventions. By knockoffs, I am generally talking about a piece of gear that duplicates the main functionality of a unique, previously existing piece of gear. I'm not talking about the second manufacturer to make a light stand, or shoot-through umbrella. We're talking the near instantaneous copycatting of innovative new photo gear.

Here's an example. A few years ago Paul Buff introduced an all-new category of light modifier—a sub-$100, large, parabolic umbrella lighting system which he dubbed the PLM. It was an entirely new design with a flat, 16-rib parabola. Previously, buying a large "para" had meant a 4- (or 5!) digit price tag. Not surprisingly, the new PLM sold so fast Buff could not manufacture them fast enough.

The photo industry definitely noticed. Within a couple of months, copycat parabolic umbrellas (same shape, very inexpensive) started popping up everywhere. Let alone design their own innovative gear, some copycat manufacturers could even be bothered to tool up to create the knockoffs on their own.

Some examples of PLM copycats actually shipped with Buff's logo visible on product. In other words, some gear actually being made with "borrowed" molds.

Paul Buff, predictably, went apeshit. Having caught them red-handed, he wrote scathing and public letters accusing the knockoff artists of blatant theft.

Buff, a life-long serial innovator, was already busy redesigning his PLM into v2.0 and v3.0, each of which in turn was better than its predecessor. But the damage was done, with the PLM-clone "paras" flooding the market.

But what's the harm, right? Everybody gets cheap parabolic umbrellas!

Actually the harm comes later, when Buff decides not to not to finance the next big innovation in light control out of the realization that other companies are just going to immediately knock it off. That's the long-term, hidden cost of indulging all of the knockoff manufacturers.


Do Unto Others

And it's not just the Chinese pop-up rebrand companies, either. Westcott, a long-reputable lighting modifier company (I love their double-fold umbrellas) is selling a PLM knockoff. (As is Adorama, via the Flashpoint name.)

This actually surprised and saddened me, until I realized that Westcott may have well given up the high road after its own products started getting knocked off by companies like Phottix.

There's a lot of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" going on there. Notably, their "Para Pro," [Paul Buff PLM] their "Easy-Folder," [Lastolite EzyBox] and their "Easy-Up," [Westcott Apollo].

But most famously, Phottix copied the electronics in the PocketWizard Plus II (with their Phottix Atlas) to the point where PocketWizard filed suit against Phottix alleging two counts of patent infringement. Phottix settled the suit out of court, with terms undisclosed. In the end, Phottix never sold the Atlas in the US. Subsequent to the settlement Phottix stopped selling it elsewhere, too.

Interestingly, Phottix is at the same time trying to establish itself as a legitimate world brand. Which kinda-sorta makes my head explode, given their continued existence making "homage" products, too.

I talked face-to-face to the management Phottix about my concerns. They assured me that is something they are trying to get past and instead pointed as example to their new Odin remotes. My belief is that it there is a legit internal struggle going on.

Here's the irony. The Odins are, by most accounts, very good remotes. And, they also appear to be actual, original work by Phottix.

And not just to harp on Phottix and Westcott. If someone invents a new light mod product category, you can bet multiple other brands will be selling a near exact copy within six months.

UPDATE, September 2014: Checking back in, Phottix has over time shifted to taking the high road with respect to original work vs. aping the products of others. As a result, their standing in the pecking order of world brands continues to rise. Kudos to Phottix, and credit where credit is due.
__________


So the broader question is, as photographers who are presumably sensitive to intellectual property, should we support this?

And even not considering the ethical question, how about a selfish one instead. Who is going to fund the R&D of innovative new gear if it is going to be knocked off a month later and sold on the net with impunity?

Nobody, is who. Which is why I view this as a very bad trend in the industry. Eventually, we all lose.

Is there a compromise to be had between free enterprise and intellectual property protection? How long should a company be able to sell a unique new design before seeing it on the website of a direct competitor? Ten years? Fifteen years?

Who knows. But I certainly think it should be more than a couple months.

I know what I don't want to see. I don't want to see a landscape in three years where everyone is just knocking off everyone else's stuff and there is no true innovation happening in the photo peripheral industry.

So in the meantime, I'll probably vote with my wallet and wait to see what happens.
__________


(Awesome Caca Cala sewage truck via FailPost.)