Here’s the scenario. You know there is a pretty cool place you want to photograph (non-commercially) but you also know even though the exposure would be good for them they might not take kindly to you “sneaking” some pics without asking so you write off and ask permission.
That’s what Thomas Hawk did, and they said no. Even though there is already a bunch of pictures floating around and he might bring in some much needed attention for the museum.
This place I had never heard of until he wrote about it, The Neon Museum, thinks keeping images of it protected helps with their mission of “cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community” (it seems they only want to serve the international community of ‘driving distance from the museum’).
I just got back a rather disappointing email from the Neon Musuem in Las Vegas. I had written to the museum to inquire about taking photographs of some of their neon signs this past weekend while in Las Vegas. I’m not going to link to the museum. You can find them on Google if you want. For those of you who don’t know what the Neon Museum is, it’s a boneyard of sorts of many of the old Las Vegas neon signs. It’s a place that these signs go to die and the non-profit Neon Museum states their mission as “to collect, preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspire educational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community.” Unfortunately their policy with regards to photography does not seem to fit with their stated mission.
What they should have said was “If people can see your pictures for free who is going to visit and put money in our donations box”. Then they would have a point. It would be tempting for Thomas to just go and sneak some pictures like everyone else but then he would lose his moral high ground, I really doubt he will stoop to that.
It’s not an easy thing, on the one hand without publicity no-one will visit so they close, on the other if people can see the stuff without visiting they close any way. Really they should be smart and work out a limited way that he can take some pics and they get good coverage without giving away the whole thing. Until they do that, they are just making their mission a joke.
Technorati Tags: photography, ethics, issues, news, rights
8 Comments
“Anonymous” and “Anonymous”, it is a shame that nobody from the museum side is willing to give their point of view on record, at least not a named person? Anonymous blog comments do not cut it really unfortunately. This just gives weight to Thomas’ case regardless of validity.
My thoughts on this stand, if the museum wanted to they could turn this into a positive story. This is not the first time that Thomas has gone on a crusade and gained a lot of attention for himself, the “museum” could turn this to their advantage or be tarnished by it.
Personally I think Thomas’ photographic treatment would have done a lot more good than harm, particularly as the best description I have heard so far is “literally a yard that the signs are stored in”; you must agree a more artistic representation would generate better positive interest, right?
I live in the UK, am very unlikely to visit, you are probably closer to the real target audience. Opinions are like … noses …, everyone has one.
I have seen hundreds of pictures of and from the top of the Empire State Building, but I still paid for the privilege of waiting 3-5 hours in line to see the view from the top for myself.
First I have heard of the place and now I know too things about it: 1) It sounds like something I would have liked to see, and 2) I will never go if you can’t take a camera in.
It does seem a short-sighted move by this group. I’m afraid it’s a sign of the times though.
The more I think about this the more I think they could turn it into a positive. Just takes them to take a step back and look at things differently.
You are getting an EXTREMELY skewed version of the events from Thomas. Please check out the comments in his blog for a little more information – or better yet, contact the Neon Museum via their website (www.neonmuseum.org) for their ACTUAL rules & regs, not Thomas’ bizarre take on them.
To say the least, Thomas is not being extremely honest with his accessment.
It is amazing how much misinformation can be disseminated by one person (Thomas)!
Yes, people can take pictures at the Neon Museum – that is not the problem. Thomas wanted to publish them on Flicker and got upset when he was told that the museum prefers that people do not do this.
I live in Las Vegas and have volunteered for the museum before, so I know some of their R&Rs. Since they do not yet have a facility, they are not yet open to the public on a regular basis. They limit access to the boneyard (literally a yard that the signs are stored in) due to limited staff and funding. Their income is now solely from tours, photo shoots and video/movie shoots. This money is used to pay for the collection and storage of the signs and what is left over goes towards the eventual building of a facility. This will, of course, open the collection to many more people.
Since photo shoots are one of their few sources of income, they frown on people publishing unprotected photos on the web that anyone can copy.
To find out the actual r&r’s of the museum, check out their website at http://www.neonmuseum.org – unless, that is, you prefer to get your info from only one, very-skewed source!
Ah well it’s been said there’s no such thing as bad publicity…shame we cant get to see more pictures
A search on flickr for “neon museum” (note the quotes!) finds 450+ images.