Talk:Counterfeit consumer good/Archives/2012

Counterfeit goods in China

• 22 July 2010, EU reports growth in fake goods from China, BBC

May be of relevance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Appalling garbage

This thing looks like it was written by the National Association of Manufacturers.

• Knockoffs are not "counterfeit goods." They're almost never sold on the pretense of being "original," let alone actually believed to be original.

• Knockoffs are a net economic gain, not a loss. The "total loss" figures here are taken by assuming that every knockoff sold
  • is intrinsically worthless
  • substitutes 1-to-1 for an "authentic" good.
• Both of these assumptions are of course total nonsense. Knockoffs are for the most part substitute goods for brand name products; they provide almost as much consumer welfare at a tiny fraction of the cost. This is a major economic gain. In addition there is a zero-sum transfer taking from unproductive, pampered, politically well-connected Western manufacturing interests and giving to low-income aspirational Third World working persons. Those who depict this as a terribly unfair rip-off are beneath contempt.

• Knockoffs are unofficially tolerated widely, and openly legal in many jurisdictions. This article is utterly dominated by the US government perspective, which is in turn beholden to US intellectual property interests.

• Counterfeiting of safety and product testing certifications, such as UL tags, is a completely separate issue. Actual counterfeiting, in the sense of producing inferior goods, mislabelling them as something they're not, and selling them to the unwitting, is a separate issue. These are of course wrong and damaging but have nothing to do with Samy Ploysation controllers and Cuggi handbags.

I tip my KNIE baseball cap, complete with upside-down swoosh, to the "counterfeiters." And boo to the corporate PR hacks who apparently wrote this pos article. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many unnecessary images

This article currently contains a lot of images that don't seem especially illuminating to me. Many of them are lumped into an image gallery at the bottom of the page, with no explanatory text at all—note that Wikipedia is not an image repository. All of the following images, which show various counterfeit goods, are currently included in this article:

• 
• 
  Counterfeit Rolex watches
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Counterfeit toys.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• File:Counterfeit cosmetics.jpg
• 
• File:Counterfeit clothes.jpg
• 

I fail to see why we need 14 images of examples of counterfeit goods—surely the reader gets the idea by seeing one or two examples. Some of these examples are even duplicated among these pictures; there are two photos of counterfeit sports shoes, two photos of counterfeit sports jerseys, and two photos of counterfeit electrical cords.

On the other hand, there are two other images in the gallery, which are of a different flavor and might be useful in the article if accompanied by explanatory text:

• 
• 

I have removed the image gallery once, in accordance with WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which says that Wikipedia is not for "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles," which is exactly what this image gallery is. The gallery was subsequently restored by User:Wikiwatcher1, who suggested a discussion. Is there a reason to keep all of these images in the article? Surely just a couple of them would be enough, wouldn't they? —Bkell (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a few images will give the general idea. But overall, the gallery, which could be trimmed of redundant photos, probably adds more to the overall article than it takes away. The article is called "Counterfeit consumer goods," and the gallery title is "photos of counterfeit products." So it's more than a "mere collection" of photos. The text mentions directly or indirectly all of the types of products shown, so the gallery directly supports the text. But I'm aware that not everyone likes to read, and images like these can leave a clear and quick impression of the subject. That's why more people watch TV than read newspapers. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that the photos are unrelated to the topic of the article; I'm saying they are disconnected from the rest of the article. That's what makes this gallery a "mere collection of photographs." There is nothing (except a four-word section heading) making a connection between the photos in the gallery and anything else in the article. I also don't see how these photographs give any particularly useful information about counterfeit consumer goods. I certainly can't tell from looking at the photos that these goods are counterfeit. To me these could just be photos of random objects. Let's consider File:Counterfeit weights.jpg (shown to the right). What information or understanding are you trying to convey to the reader by the inclusion of this photo? To me it just looks like a photo of an ordinary set of weights, and I guess I come away with the idea that weights are sometimes counterfeited, but this isn't ever actually said, so I'm unsure if I'm guessing the correct conclusion here. —Bkell (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You said, "I certainly can't tell from looking at the photos that these goods are counterfeit. To me these could just be photos of random objects." That's the whole point, isn't it? These are not random photos, but photos of actual counterfeit goods. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

…So the message you are trying to get across is that counterfeit goods cannot (easily) be distinguished from real ones? —Bkell (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one benefit of actual photos. Other benefits might be showing the diversity of products and their value range - from expensive jewelry to toothpaste. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the message you are trying to convey through this image gallery is threefold:

1. Counterfeit goods cannot easily be distinguished from real ones.
2. Many types of products are counterfeited.
3. Both expensive goods and mundane goods are counterfeited.

If this is what you are trying to say, then say it. For example, I think the photo of counterfeit Viagra is a good picture to illustrate the first point, if it is shown alongside a photo of real Viagra tablets and has a caption that says something like, "Often counterfeit goods cannot easily be distinguished from real ones. On the left is a photograph of counterfeit Viagra tablets confiscated by U.S. Customs; on the right is a photograph of genuine Viagra tablets." This caption explains the significance of the photo and presents the reader with definite information. Using the photos in this way to make a point is much better than simply throwing a bunch of photos at the bottom of the article and hoping that the reader will get something from them. And the photos that we are not using to make a particular point ("this is a photo of a counterfeit item" isn't a meaningful point) should not be included in the article. —Bkell (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your #s 1 - 3 give good reasons the illustrations are helpful. In fact you could add that summary to the article. But your suggestion of having side-by-side photos is unlikely to be available and probably of no use even if we had them. People can't even tell the difference between the real object and a fake, much less a simple photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So you are trying to say those three things. The image gallery format is not working, though—it is not an effective way to get the point across. After all, we had to have this long discussion before I understood what it was you were trying to say. So we need to find a better way to make those three points in this article. Let's start with the first one: "Counterfeit goods cannot easily be distinguished from real ones." I suggested side-by-side photos, but you don't think that's a good idea. Do you have a better suggestion? —Bkell (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have an example of side-by-side photos, feel free to add or link them, and explain how it might help. For example, if you found images of a $100 bill, one counterfeit and one real, and posted them both, what would it show that a single image couldn't? They would both look identical in the photo. In fact, most people couldn't tell the difference if they were handed both. So I don't see any benefit to having twice as many photos of the same items. If you can explain otherwise, feel free. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, okay, so perhaps images are not the right way to convey the idea that counterfeit items are often indistinguishable from genuine ones? Perhaps a sentence or a paragraph would do the job better? Or are you saying that it would be enough to have a single image with a caption like, "Often counterfeit goods cannot easily be distinguished from genuine ones"? —Bkell (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those sounds like a better idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to make this a better article, and one important thing that needs to be done with this article is to clarify exactly what point the image gallery is trying to make, and to state that point more clearly. The image gallery, as it is, is not clearly saying anything. It is just an arbitrary collection of photos of counterfeit goods. There is no clear message. Right now, it is just a "collection of photographs … with no text to go with the article," which is precisely what WP:NOTREPOSITORY says Wikipedia is not for. As WP:IG states:

The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery…. Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. …

…[A] gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. … One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

This is what I am trying to fix here. The gallery in this article is precisely what these guidelines are talking about. The photos have no captions or text to relate them to specific points made in the rest of the article, and the heading of the gallery is just "Photos of counterfeit products". If we are not clearly using these photos to make specific points, we should remove them from the article, because Wikipedia is not meant to be just a collection of images. At the very least we need to include captions with the images, "to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery."

Your point of view seems to be that some readers might look at the gallery and might be able to infer something from it. But if we are hoping that readers will come away with some vague impression of an idea, we would do better to state that idea explicitly. I certainly didn't understand what the image gallery was trying to say, and I'm still not sure I get it; I am trying to work with you here so that we can make your points clearer. But you're going to have to help me. I have suggested some ideas for improvements, but you don't like them, so now it's your turn.

There are two big questions here that I don't feel have been satisfactorily addressed yet:

1. Exactly what point or points are you trying to make with this image gallery? What are you trying to say or show? (I listed my three guesses, but you haven't really confirmed that my guesses are spot-on; you just described them as "good reasons the illustrations are helpful". So am I right in guessing your points? Or am I putting words into your mouth? Or maybe you are trying to say something else?)
2. Second, since the image gallery is not clearly conveying the point you are trying to make, what can we do to improve that?

Please, offer your suggestions. I am trying to improve this article. —Bkell (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the pictures "are trying say," I'd say we've entered an infinite loop. You now say " I certainly didn't understand what the image gallery was trying to say, and I'm still not sure I get it." But you earlier said, "as I understand it, the message you are trying to convey through this image gallery is threefold: Coun­ter­feit goods can­not eas­ily be dis­tin­guished from real ones; Many types of prod­ucts are coun­ter­feited; Both ex­pen­sive goods and mun­dane goods are coun­ter­feited."

So you got it - in fact even better than me. But now you no longer get it. My suggestion, based on what you've said, would be for you to add some text material describing what the images show, either within the article or as a caption. If you really think it will help to include a caption like "Photo of counterfeit electrical cords" under that photo, feel free. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you're leaving it up to me, I would say those pictures are just "images of counterfeit products" with no other specific purpose. In that case I think the gallery should be removed from this article and the images moved to Wikimedia Commons, in accordance with the guidelines at WP:IG. —Bkell (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the thumbnails smaller. They need captions. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

What should be done about the image gallery in this article? Does it "add to the reader's understanding of the subject", or is it "an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject" (wording from WP:IG)? —Bkell (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: photo gallery RfC

• I do not think that the images add anything to the article. The gallery could and should be deleted. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think that - in general - pictures of counterfeit items are useful to the reader (after all, when one encounters such an item in real life, the instinct is to closely scrutinize it to see if any flaws can be detected). However, as currently implemented, the photo gallery is not ideal, and could be improved by (1) excluding obscure products (i.e. include only famous/common brands e.g. Gucci purses, Intel chips, Chanel perfume, NFL jerseys, etc); (2) including side-by-side photos: comparing counterfeit vs. non-counterfeit (e.g. photo of fake Rolex & photo of real Rolex); (3) (2) include some evidence in the counterfeit photos that the product is counterfeit (e.g. police officer, or a label within the photo). It would be great if an editor could spend some time hunting for better (public domain) photos and improving the photo gallery. What is the maximum number of photos that should be included? I would say around a dozen products (that would be 24 photos: a pair for each product). But quality is more important than quantity, so I would limit the gallery to products/photos that meet the 3 guidelines above. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of those issues were discussed in the earlier section. A few added details can be mentioned: When other photos of counterfeit goods from news sources were added in the past, they were quickly deleted under the premise that since counterfeit goods exist, we should be able to take our own photos. Good luck! The few PD images easily available are included in the gallery unless someone volunteers to search through the FBI archives. Good luck! It's already essentially impossible for the average person, or even law enforcement, to spot the difference between real and fake goods. It has become a forensic science. The stores, pharmacies, food stores, and even jewelers are taken in easily and can't tell. And if they could tell and discovered fakes, the last thing they'll be doing is publicizing that fact. Hence, the idea that real and fake items of any sort could be shown side-by-side with circles and arrows pointing out the differences is a fantasy. At least a mini gallery like this one has the visual impact that a detailed article doesn't have, especially for those who don't like to read. --[User:Wikiwatcher1|Wikiwatcher1]] (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. A couple of thoughts: (1) Regarding Public Domain & Copyright issues: The WP policy is pretty clear, so there isn't much purpose in proposing exceptions to that rule here. If there is a shortage of legitimate photos of counterfeit items, that is unfortunate, but not much we can do about it. Most U.S. government photos are in the public domain, so perhaps a search of Customs/FBI/Trademark databases would help. (2) I did not suggest that the gallery should have pairs of photos "side-by-side with circles and arrows pointing out the differences". I merely suggested two photos: one of the legitimate item, and one of the counterfeit. If they are indistinguishable, so be it: that just demonstrates the quality of the counterfeiting. The point I was trying to make was: If the gallery just has a single photo of, say, a fake Rolex, the reader (a) will question the legitimacy of the photo: how do we know that it is fake (i.e. what is the provenance of the photo?) Hence my suggestion for some "proof" within the photo, such as police. (b) By having side-by-side photos, the user can get a better feel for what counterfeiting is all about. On the other hand, if the photo contained some internal evidence of the fakery (e.g. police officer) then the other "legitimate" photo is probably unnecessary, so I think the requirement for 2 photos may be excessive. I'll strike that from my suggestion above. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Each photo already has a direct link to the government source proving its provenance and that its a "legitimate fake." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, that is important to know. In that case, could you put a brief caption under each photo (such as "counterfiet Bowflex equipment") including a link to the external site that documents its provenance (e.g. Customs)? It would be best if readers could get to the provenance with a single click. Once that is done, about the only other improvement I would make is to eliminate the photos that are not recognizable name brands, such as the extension cords or computer chip. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone else want to take the time to add detailed captions to save users an extra click, I don't think anyone will object. Note that the gallery now is titled "photos of counterfeit products," so the word "counterfeit" repeated everywhere is not needed. As for the difference between seeing an actual brand name as opposed to a type of product itself, I personally see no major necessary distinction for the purpose of the gallery, since the article is about "products," not particular brands. The photo of a table full of cosmetics is meant to point out that cosmetics in general are sometimes counterfeited, not that any particular brands are. The same goes for the boxes of sunglasses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• There can be no question that, from an encyclopaedic point of view, images of an article's subject are generally quite useful and educational. The images being debated, as it happens, are neutral and simply show what a commercially sold item, like the ones described in the article, looks like. We can dispute the NPOV of the article but simple images of the article's subject can never be "inappropriate". A user goes to Wikipedia to be informed about subject XYZ and also finds an image of it. That's Wikipedia doing a good job. -The Gnome (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think ideally more of the images should be worked into the article so that there is not a big block of them at the bottom, however given the choice between the block and no images, I think the block is better. It does add some value to the article, and the blockyness of the gallery isn't enough to override that for me. Monty₈₄₅ 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Images are useful if they add information to the article. I don't think a block of photos of arbitrary consumer goods - even if they are all counterfeit - comply with the guidelines at WP:Images#Image choice and placement. However, if you really want to keep them all, I suggest that inserting a sentence like "examples of the wide range of counterfeit products" would help, because the multiple photos would then be serving some purpose - illustrating a wide range. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues

This page has many issues. Counterfeit is a legal term. Artificial is a technical term. They are not the same.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Many issues indeed. The section marked is so slanted as to be ludicrous. If anyone has a source for material that backs this up, that would be useful, but it reads like a screed .99.255.64.149 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As Michael Geist argues in this 2007 article, the volume of counterfeit goods is just 0.06%, not 5–7%. He cites this study by the Government Accountability Office.
95.96.237.51 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking logos and entering a different industry is not counterfeiting. It is using a name for inspiration to sound like a legitimate enterprise. Had Hatari produced a look-alike gaming console and the same games, then it would be counterfeit. This is just BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.183.40 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure about the US specifics, but internationally enforcement of counterfeit and knock-off is dictated by TRIPS official source wiki, in europe it is primarily IPRED wiki official source. Why include as much space for SOPA and ACTA? Both are more or less dead and the stubs about them are not actually giving any useful information about what counterfeiting is or how it is handled. They are merely footnotes telling a story about how massively disliked some of the related enforcement-treaties/laws have become especially on the internet. Generally the article is carrying a significant bias in the editorialising and doesn't take on any of the severe problems in the area as medicine and third world implementation of enforcement.Radiatoren (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)