This thread
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,64091.0.html carries on over here, to avoid confusion and several subjects/topics in the same thread and allow it to return to the original subject.
To sum things up, the subject of copyright came up which lead to several reactions.
Anne Tique said: He, Marius Sabino, mentioned that something really had to be done to stop the 'copieurs de vitrine', people who copied items displayed in shop windows, by drawing the designs in a little notebook, while they stood outside on the pavement, 'admiring' the items.
Marcus said: It is common knowledge that d'Avesn, for example, designed a couple(?) of items whilst at Lalique, however Lalique purchased the copyright to all of d'Avesn's designs whilst under his employment and I can think of at least 18 patterns which d'Avesn wasn't credited for. His work, runs into many hundreds of different designs. I'm also aware that he even designed at least one pattern produced for and by Val Saint Lambert, whilst he was still at Verlys. So-called Hoffman Malachite glass is just one casualty as so too is Galle and Daum, for example.
Lustrousstone said:Modern Hoffman malachite glass items not copies. They are legitimate reissues based on original moulds and are sold as such. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to know which is period and which is modern.
Reissues and long production periods have been around a long while. The Davidson 269 (blackberry) pattern was made for almost 70 years and Davidson bought and used many moulds from companies that went under.
The possibility of a working relationship between d'Avesn, VSL and Verlys was mentioned, with a comparison between models, for images please refer to the other thread.
Hopefully Marcus can tell us a little bit more about the mentioned theories and I'm also wondering about another thing.
Marcus said, in Quote 2 above: Lalique purchased the copyright to all of d'Avesn's designs whilst under his employment and I can think of at least 18 patterns which d'Avesn wasn't credited for.
If Lalique bought the copyrights from the copyright holder, who did they buy them from then? Would it not be more than normal practise, that once these are bought, the original designer is not mentioned anymore, unless stated in some kind of contract? In the end, as you say, he was employed by Lalique and was therefor paid for his services, so imho nothing extraordinary was done by d'Avesn and he just did what he was paid for ... or am I seeing this wrong? Isn't this still normal practise today?