Exposing Houdini: 52 Lost Glass Plate Images is available now.
UPDATE: There has been some confusion over Charles' comments in this interview. To be clear, Charles DID win one of the two auction lots, but he didn't want to share this on the podcast. But he's given me permission to share it here.
Charles did a magnificent job of this book! The photos are stunning! Does anyone have any theories about the mystery photo on page 161? I'm guessing it was taken sometime between 1908 and 1913. It's been published already in the J.C. Cannell book.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure it's Germany in 1908. BTW, Jessica Jane owns that negative. It wasn't part of this auction. Glad Charles mentioned that. It's not credited in the book.
DeleteI have not listened to this podcast yet but Speaking of credits, I’d like to know & have asked Charles several times if he personally owns these glass slides he scanned & published from the auction house. He has not answered me on that. I know Don Greenberg bought half the of the two lot selections that did not have duplicates. The two slides on the cover of Charles’ book actually belong to Don. Don shared this information publicly in his talk at the recent Magic Collectors Expo in New Jersey. I’m not sure how an auction house allows someone to scan lots pending ownership & publish the materials as now belonging to them for profit with no benefit to the person who bought the materials. This is what Charles has done. It’s a nice book but what is the ethics of that in our magic community? Can we support that? Personally, I think Charles owes Don Greenberg compensation & an apology. The same would go for the owner of the other lot. The auction house is clearly culpable too and should be chastised for this if not more.
DeleteThanks! It looks to me like he's wearing the same dark swimming trunks we see in the ironic Milk Can photos. His body also matches the Milk Can photos. An exceptionally slim waist during those years going all the way into 1912-13.
DeleteCharles did mention in the podcast that he didn't own the negatives. I'm glad he photographed them and got it out.
DeleteI knew Charles had photographed the images at the auction house, but I was somehow under the impression that he had won one of the two lots. The winner of the second lot was unknown.
DeleteWhen Charles photographed the glass negatives, the current owners didn't own them. The auction house gave him permission to photograph the negatives.
DeleteMe: (has the sudden urge to feed him and fatten him up) Harry!! Eat!! - Abby Martin
DeleteDear Anonymous, please provide your name and I shall answer all of your questions. If we have spoken, as you say that we have, we should know each other. Let's start with you sharing your name. Then, we can discuss your issues with the use of the images. Who are you?
DeleteWAIT!!! WAIT!!! I just talked to Charles himself. He DID win one of the two lots. But he didn't want to say that on the podcast.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness Charles admitted to winning some of those glass negatives! The masked Houdini ethics police were knocking on my door...
DeleteNothing wrong with ethics police.
DeleteAfter all, it's only money on the line...My copy of Exposing Houdini is now incriminating evidence against me. I'm going to have to throw it in the fireplace. I paid hard earned money for that book! 🤣
DeleteInteresting. Why didn't Charles Greene just produce a book with his negatives? Why use 30 slides that is the personal property of Don Greenberg? Not only a book was manufactured but a view finder as well with Greenberg's images. How do you explain those Ethics Hevia? This is a for profit venture.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. You mean the OTHER 30 slides. Why didn't you say that at the beginning? 🤣
DeleteDear Anonymous, it is not none who you are or why you are hiding. You seem to be missing certain salient points.
ReplyDeleteAt the time that I saw the slides, the auction house owned them. They were abandoned property that was a part of a week long sale of 409 lots. The auction gave me unrestricted permission to take photos of the gpn. I was not the only person to take photos of them. The photos belonged to the auction and to no one else at the time that I photographed them.
This shall warrant a robust investigation into the truth as the truth will prevail. Preliminary findings have rendered the following insights. The publication leaves much ambiguity as to the ownership of the photographs. With said author claiming in print, the ownership of the glass plate slides is an unknown. The statement is furthered with podcasts, interviews and a direct question "do you own the images sir?" Answer as written and taped transcriptions is a no. Recently this answer is changed to yes. One half of the photographic slides are owned by the producer of the book. To take this riddle and investigation further we present the following statement "If this was to be for more than personal use, then absolutely not as this is not part of our business model and not in our best interest." The "author" who claims they were given full permission to photograph and produce a commercially for profit product for promotional and financial gain has been rebutted by a principle at the firm. "If this was to be for more than personal use, then absolutely not as this is not part of our business model and not in our best interest." Who and what do you believe? The truth will prevail as the investigation continues. What is right and what is wrong? In your opinion was this handled correctly?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that odd that someone who posts anonymously would stat that "the truth shall prevail." Let's begin with a basic request, anonymous, who are you? Why do you write in the shadows?
DeleteThe ownership of the photographs use for Exposing Houdini have never been in questions. I own most of the photographs. There are a few in the book that came from Potter & Potter, Musée McCord-Stewart, and some private collectors. I worked with all of them and many collectors as the book was assembled.
At no point did I ever state that I did not own the images. I have owned them since I took photos, with the auction house's unrestricted permission, on September 17, 2024. On that same day, I saw other people taking photos of the negatives.
Anonymous, you are wrong. The auction did not elaborate on any permission restrictions. In advance of flying to Ohio, I called the auction house and asked them two questions. One, can I see the items before the auction. They said "Yes," with no restrictions. Two, may I photographs the negatives. "They said "Yes," with no restrictions. That was more the 20 months ago. Just the last week, the V.P. and President of the auction have addressed this issue. The auction house stated that due to confidentially, they do not issue statements. Thus, if you have actual documents from the auction house, I ask that you provide them.
What warrants a robust investigation is your identity, your conflation of details, and the reasons for your evasiveness. So let's begin at the top. Who are you?
I agree. It seems in this case, Anonymous should reveal themselves. If you don't want to do so publicly, you should at least do so to Charles privately.
DeletePlease forgive any typos. To quote Bill Rauscher "Typos are like magical escape artists. They vanish before the sharpest eyes and reappear once you look away."
ReplyDelete