Talk:Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign/Archive 1

Merging into Las Vegas Boulevard
Honestly, I don't see why we need an article on a neon sign, but rather than AfD this I've decided to start a merge vote. Sign your name below. You have 7 days as of now. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the sign is not noteable? This is a sign that is know around the world and has it's own history.  I would love to discover all of the previous locations so that they could be included in that article.  Which criteria for deleting articles does this meet?  I don't think that it qualifies under any.  Remember that wikipedia is not paper. Vegaswikian 23:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Vegaswikian. Yes, we DO need an article on a neon sign, because that particular neon sign happens to be one of (if not the) most famous signs in the world. It is arguably Vegas' unofficial landmark and symbol. If the Hollywood Sign gets an article, then the Vegas sign surely does too! BreakFastClubb 11:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with the two opinions above. This sign is well-known world wide and probably the most famous neon sign ever. Therefore it defnitely deserves it's own entry. I was very happy when I found this article and translated it for the german wikipedia. --Florian 16:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is among the most notable advertising signs in the world. There are probably tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of reproductions, imitations, references, and images of this sign. By the way, the people who have already said "keep" here should mark their positions down below in the "votes". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since it was my article, that I split out from the Strip article, I wanted to wait for other feedback before I voted which I have now done. I think that the article probably should be renamed to Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign since that seems to be a more correct name.  Finally, given no support for the proposal to merge, and comments and votes in this informal vote supporting keeping the article, I'll probably pull the merge tags later today unless someone beats me to it. Vegaswikian 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Las Vegas Boulevard

 * 1) Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep as own article

 * 1) BreakFastClubb 11:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Vegaswikian 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issue?
http://www.localcolorart.com/search/encyclopedia/Las_Vegas/ is a copy of wiki entry for Las Vegas, Nevada so how can this page be a copyright violation? The information for this article was moved from other wiki articles on Las Vegas to a page for this landmark sign. The sign itself is not even copyrighted!


 * To clarify for the benefit of other users: The link above is to a Wikipedia mirror site.  I didn't realize it at the time I pulled the copyvio trigger.  This is totally GNU, picture included. - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you can copyright a sign, but the creator wanted it to be freely used, so he/she didn't copyright it. I read that somewhKF5LLG (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)ere.
 * Saw this linked on Reddit, and am very confused. There as no such thing as "copyrighting" a sign under U.S. law. All you do is create a design for a sign, and you then own the copyright for that design. Whether you want it or not, whether you register it or not, it is copyrighted. It is possible to register a copyright, but it is unnecessary. What most likely happened in the case of this sign is that the copyright was not defended. That is, the designer or owner of the sign has chosen not to enforce any of the restrictive rights available under copyright, which led to the sign's proliferation and fame. I would change the article to reflect this, but I don't have a clue what the original author was actually talking about--all I can tell is that it's nonsense. 24.2.76.141 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that your position is correct for copyright law in the US in 1959? I believe that the law was changed many years after this sign was designed to allow for the automatic copyright.  Your point about the design rather then the actual sign being able to be copyrighted sounds correct and the article may need to be modified to more clearly state that. Do we have a copyright expert who can chime in?  Vegaswikian 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a copyright course in law school and, although you should regard this as an editorial rather than legal opinion, I think you are both right to an extent. I don't think it's right to say that you can't copyright a sign--perhaps in general signs are not copyrightable (e.g., signs that just say a few words and don't present them artistically), but those that are creative works would probably fall under "pictorial or graphic works" and are anyway "original works of authorship."  These days copyright vests in a creative work at the moment it is authored or created, but that is the result of legislation passed in 1989.  I believe that, prior to that legislation, it was not necessary to register a work with any government agency, but it was necessary to provide notice on the work itself, i.e., a copyright symbol and the author's name.  If that was not done for the Las Vegas sign, I believe any possible claim to copyright would have been forfeited.  I agree, however, that it would be nice to have a citation for the proposition that the sign is not copyrighted.  We can't tell from this article or its sources, for instance, whether copyright notice ever was provided.  --Capnpitz 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Move
The article was moved on Feb 4th, without anyone checking first to see if there was any objections. While the current title is shorter, the former title of Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Sign is linked by many articles under that name, including in the info box. It also represents what the sign actually says and describes its purpose as a welcome sign. The above discussion shows the choice of name was not done for no reason. So I'm reverting the move. Any objections should be discussed here. oknazevad 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just shot a better photo of the sign
I just shot a better (and higher-resolution) photo of the sign during my recent trip to Vegas. Any objections before I replace the existing photo? --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Post it to commons, and put a link up here, so we can see what it looks like. It's awfully hard to judge whether the photo should be changed if we don't know what the replacement looks like.oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the best picture that we have had so far was the one that removed all of the wires hanging behind it. So a picture that does not include those would be super. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)