Author Topic: Baccarat Garniture de Toilette Serie “Diamants Pierreries” D.1776, pre-1916  (Read 1103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline agincourt17

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 991
  • Gender: Male
    • Pressed glass 1840-1900
    • Wales
Baccarat Garniture de Toilette Serie “Diamants Pierreries” D.1776 (clear crystal cut with a diamond pattern, with blue flashing to central flat facets, and gilt detailing to rims).

Comprises two cylindrical stoppered perfume bottles, an oval lidded trinket box (or, as shown in the catalogue, a soap box), and a circular bowl. The bowl is marked with a raised ‘Baccarat | Depose’, and is the only marked piece.

Pieces shown in the 1916 Baccarat catalogue (though the bowl has a scalloped rim, not a plain rim, as here). Top page:
http://www.glas-musterbuch.de/Baccarat-1916-br-Garnitures-de.54+B6YmFja1BJRD01NCZwcm9kdWN0SUQ9MjEyMSZwaWRfcHJvZHVjdD01NCZkZXRhaWw9.0.html

Sold today on eBay for Ł206.99.

(Permission for re-use of these images on the GMB granted by goofle)

Offline agincourt17

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 991
  • Gender: Male
    • Pressed glass 1840-1900
    • Wales
2 more images of same set

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 5728
  • Gender: Male
hello Fred - very attractive set and assume 1916 refers to the initial design date and not the date of manufacture of these particular pieces.      Just shows people are prepared to pay good money for desirable material.

I notice that you quite rightly confirm that the seller has given permission, and you're obviously happy (and no doubt so are the Mods.) that there aren't any problems with this arrangement - but I wonder if the buyers are equally happy.     You have permission from the Seller because, quite rightly, prior to the sale they own the glass  -  but we continue to show the same images after ownership has passed to the buyer.          Do we know if Buyers are equally happy with this arrangement?
Would we be happy to take down the pix if, for example, a buyer requested that?

I guess you'll argue that it's not a practicable proposition to ask Buyers for their permission, since we don't know who they are  -  but I just had this thought that forewarned is forearmed  -  I am aware that not everyone is quite so happy with this arrangement. 
Quite rightly the use and display of others people's images is something to be treated with respect and your intentions to make as much data available to the maximum number of people is a great idea  -  it's just that not knowing how the Buyers view this might be cause for thought - do you think? :)   

Offline Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 10913
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
The pictures belong to the photographer. The glass belongs to the buyer. It's as simple as that.

Offline Anne

  • GMB Tech Support Manager & "Board (never bored) Dame"
  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 11193
  • Gender: Female
  • I has a stick to poke the server with yes!
    • Glass trinket sets
    • Cumbria England
    • ALAVNA Vintage & Collectable Glass
Paul, Christine is correct. From the board's point of view, so long as the person who took the photos is happy for us to use them then the buyer has no say in the issue.

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 5728
  • Gender: Male
my thanks to both of you  -  typical of the law to lack common sense.    It's obvious that in some instances this may leave an owner open to a situation where the use of third party images of their possessions, has the potential to be used in a way the owner might not agree to.      Doubtless this is the reason why museums and galleries frequently forbid the use of cameras, and seems to be a judgment more inclined to make people (other than sellers) decline to allow pix of their possessions since they will have no control over their use.              For obvious reasons that sellers will appreciate, images in the public domain are important to them - I doubt that buyers/collectors feel the same way - you only have to look at internet sites to see reminders that images are copyright (although permission to use might be granted on request).     I don't personally have an axe to grind, insofar as being pc illiterate and not organized enough, I have never copied a single pic belonging to others - but as an owner of glass I'd feel less than happy if people used my pix without either........my giving carte blanche (as I often do) or someone requesting permission (as they do occasionally).
We all benefit from the generosity and courtesy of owners (not sellers) who allow the use of pix of their possessions - although in reality it would seem that this attitude toward the owner would appear counter productive to that ethos, and doubtless is discouraging some from being generous. 

sorry this is too long.......I just think the law is an ass.

Offline Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 10913
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
The law isn't an ass in this case. If the owner of "whatever" owned all the pictures of the "whatever" taken before he bought it, no pictures of anything that is possessed anywhere could ever be published and there would be no films. You could go so far as to say picture ownership goes back to the manufacturer of the item. At the time the pictures of ebay items were taken, the seller was the owner of the item and any photographs of it he took. After a sale, he retains the pictures.

Museums and galleries don't allow photographs because a) it is much harder for thieves to compile a shopping list and b) the flash photography can damage delicate items. It is much simpler for organisations to have a global ban than to apply it selectively.

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 5728
  • Gender: Male
you're still avoiding the moral argument - that to me seems obvious - whereby the owner of something (not the seller) appears to have no say in how the images of their possessions may be used.      It would appear obvious that if an owner is not contactable, then images of their goods should simply not be used - or if the image has been used because it belonged to a seller, then at the point of sale that image is no longer freely available.
It's obvious that an ebay seller is unlikely to object  -  they are parting with the goods and have no interest whatsoever once they've posted the 'something'.
My point is simply that there is a moral argument in favour of courtesy in requesting permission from the owner, to use a picture of something they own, and if you can't find the buyer then the image should not be used.
Owners/collectors invest their capital in the goods - they insure them, pay for cabinets with which to display them, frequently research the object, often make their object available to others on internet sites -  and then turn round and find that they have no rights over the images which, in some circumstances, might be used for purposes with which they may not agree.

We've been lucky in recent times with, for example, the National Archives and the V. & A. Museum  -  time was they'd never have agreed to images of their possessions being used by anyone, watermarked or otherwise.
 
I'm not trying to disagree with you deliberately Christine, I don't for a moment doubt your knowledge of the laws of copyright in view of your work - it's just that I feel the law in this instance is being mis-used (and I do frequently consider the law an ass).        None of this is to say that an owner/collector won't give permission for an image of their goods to be used  -  I'm suggesting we owe them a little more than a dismissive waive.

I'm fed up with using a lap top - missing my mouse terribly  -  so will leave you to have the last word, and promise I won't reply. :)   

Offline Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 10913
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
You do know you can plug a mouse into your laptop, any laptop, even a tablet...

My point is that those possessions belonged to the sellers when the photos was taken. There is no moral argument that involves the purchaser, known or unknown.  Think about it logically.

Are you saying that your pictures of the things that now live at my house and at Anne's house should be removed from here. You didn't ask us if they could stay. I'm not being serious here, of course, just trying to make my point. Every possession that someone didn't make themselves was once owned by somebody/thing else.

Offline Paul S.

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 5728
  • Gender: Male
1/..............yes, but it won't work for me............getting my son to cure all the ills on Sunday, hopefully :)

2/....and 3/.......     promised I wouldn't say anything.

 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Enter key words
Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com