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.

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.

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!