Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => France => Topic started by: Anne Tique on September 30, 2017, 09:18:52 AM
-
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?
-
I guess I have created more exciting work for you Kevin :D, I tried to post several quotes, to put it all in context, but the whole thing now shows up as one quote, which I guess must be a bit difficult to read...
-
Thanks for your work in selecting and copying the quoted text.
No worries about the text being in one post; I will tidy that up very soon. I will also tidy up the original thread (which I will do in the Moderator Central forum) and add some guidance remarks (based on your wording) about use of this thread rather than the Etling one. ;D
-
Thanks for your help Kevin, that looks so much better and easier to read :-*
-
The original thread on Etling catalogues is now tidied up. I have left copied text in that thread for proper context with other points. If anyone sees anything in that thread - or this one - that needs more tidying, please say so.
-
Thanks once again Kevin for all your hard work on this thread and especially the other one, the Etling thread and splitting them up. I had hoped to learn something new, but unfortunately Marcus hasn't mentioned anything else on these topics, for now, but I hope he'll be back soon. I'm working on an essay on Charles Graffart at VSL at the moment, so any info is relevant to me and I had hoped to come across new info.