Do you think artists should be allowed by law to sell their artwork on public lands without a permit?

Why should one business be required to have a permit to sell goods and another not? Hot dog carts have to have permits. Even a child’s lemonade stand would require a permit to operate. It’s all the same, in my opinion. Not to say that I don’t see people pedal things on the streets. I’m fine with it. But artists are no different if they aren’t following city ordinances and get caught.

@GloPro
A hot dog is not artistic expression

I agree. My point is that it doesn’t matter. Discrimination against any vendor selling any good is still discrimination. Money in exchange for a product, regardless of it’s creation, is the premise of needing a permit.
Do I agree with issuing permits? Not necessarily. But you cannot discriminate against one vendor over another.

@GloPro Those selling edible products require permits to certify that they comply with health codes; it’s a matter of public safety, not of simple commerce.

If you are simply displaying art it is First Amendment, if money is exchanged for art it is a business and needs a business license.

@Tropical_Willie It depends on the scale. For instance, you can sell a used car in WA without a permit, but if you sell 5+ cars a year, then you need a dealership permit.

Ok, @jerv, how about purses, jewelry, crystals, pipes?

Oh, geeze. Does that mean that the guy with that annoying Indian Flute is going to be there, too?

Incidentally, music is an art, so Kiss should get to set up in Central Park for free.

@jerv five vehicles a year is a business, it is personal property just like selling your dining room set on craigslist. But making and/or producing items that are not for use in your household as a painting or jewelry, is a business.

@ibstubro Several years back I was walking through Central Park and came upon Sheryl Crow and her guitar. There were maybe 10 people around her, and she was just jamming. She said it was her 40th birthday, and she just wanted to play for regular people in the park unnoticed. She played for about 20 minutes before the crowds started to gather.

@ibstubro & @GloPro busking is a business, so if the guitar case is open on the ground with money in it, it is a business.

I don’t disagree. I just hope that poor bastard can run!

It is perfectly understandable that a municipal government would want to regulate commercial enterprises operating in public spaces.

Were you able to stay and ‘groupie’, @GloPro??

@ibstubro “Incidentally, music is an art, so Kiss should get to set up in Central Park for free.”

I just have to say the idea of KISS doing anything for free is one of the more amusing notions I’ve heard all week. But yes, if KISS wanted to perform in Central Park free of charge they absolutely should be able to do so long as they have all the proper permits and licensing covering noise pollution (as rock spectacles of they type they present tend to be quite loud), stage construction, labor used, and anything else of that nature that might be subject to permits. Beyond that if they wish to give their art away for free they are absolutely within their rights to do so.

When or if anyone takes the time to actually read the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (which was upheld by the US Supremes by virtue of refusing to hear the NYC appeal) you will find that the 1st Amendment protection of Free Speech now extends to Artistic Expression. According to the courts the artist who creates the art is free to sell his/her artwork on public lands without a permit.

This may cause some to wonder just what is art? Is jewelry making, purse making, pipe making art? Probably. But not just anyone may sell these items without a permit. Only the creating artist him/herself.

@Tropical_Willie If you are simply displaying art it is First Amendment, if money is exchanged for art it is a business and needs a business license.
Untrue. The courts require no license nor permit for an artist to sell his/her artwork on public lands. It doesn’t matter how many units of art you sell.
But making and/or producing items that are not for use in your household as a painting or jewelry, is a business.
It may be, but it is protected by the 1st Amendment if it is artwork being sold by the creating artist.

@GloPro Why should one business be required to have a permit to sell goods and another not? Hot dog carts have to have permits.
As @ragingloli stated, those items are not art.
But artists are no different if they aren’t following city ordinances and get caught.
Wrong. it is now the cities who are in violation, and althiugh they can sick the cops on the artist, in the end the artist will triumph and there are many many civil cases throughout the US where artists whose 1st Amendment right to sell their artwork w/out a permit on public lands successfully sued the municipalities involved and were awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My point is that it doesn’t matter. Discrimination against any vendor selling any good is still discrimination.
It may be discrimination, but it is legally sanctioned and protected discrimination.
But you cannot discriminate against one vendor over another.
I beg to differ.

@ibstubro actually, I appreciated the moment for what it was – intimate. When it became less so I kept walking.

Yes, they should.

Within reason, all merchants should be allowed to sell their wares in public, including artists. There is no reason why storefronts should have a monopoly on commerce. Commerce is a much more productive use of street space than free storage for automobiles.

The right-wing goons who occupy NYC’s government and police department detest deviance, and historically the cool thing about NYC has always been that it had a culture that tolerated and offered sanctuary for deviants. In this case, art deviates from their vision of a mall-like atmosphere free of poor people. As long as it’s locked away in an overpriced gallery, it’s fine, but artists that can’t afford that are supposed to GTFO.

I’m not against permits per se, if the polis has a need for them, but NYC’s authoritarian government simply wanted to extract rent from people when there was no meaningful shortage of space for the artists.

@bolwerk Storefronts have to apply for business licenses and pay rent. Wouldn’t you be upset if you sold purses in a storefront and some random merchant set up shop for free right in front of your store, sold the same purses for less because they had no overhead costs?

@GloPro: not particularly. I’d find a way to come up with a new and better edge of the competition. Storefronts and street merchants and coexisted peacefully for millennia.

You may feel differently if it affected your ability to pay your rent.
Plus, it’s kind of a pain in the ass to be hit up to buy something walking down the street. I don’t mind street merchants, but the purpose of the permits is to make sure the streets don’t become flea markets.

@GloPro: big box stores affect the ability of traditional storefront merchants to pay their rent by diverting customers away from urban retail districts. If anything, street merchants probably draw people to the district and help their competition by adding color and variety.

One street merchant affecting one storefront is a rather meaningless anecdote to me.

Actually, the purpose of the permits is to rake in the do ray me from the vendors. However, the cities do have the right to regulate certain areas like storefronts and sidewalks to keep from congestion becoming a hazard. The courts recognized this in their decision. The cities do not have the right to regulate the vendors strictly in an attempt to stop them because they have no business license nor do they pay rent.

But keep in mind this case mentioned in the title question has to do with street artists (specifically painters) selling their artwork in front of the NYC Museum of Art.
It then trickles down to include all artists.

And even though the artist needs no permit to sell their artwork on Public Lands, they do need a tax license (although the cops never ask to see that).

@GloPro “Wouldn’t you be upset if you sold purses in a storefront and some random merchant set up shop for free right in front of your store, sold the same purses for less because they had no overhead costs?”

Many capitalists, despite their talk of “free markets”, hate market competition and love for governments to put in place laws that stifle competition in the marketplace.

Indeed. Most capitalists in the world just admit that capitalism is about monopolizing a place or plant or process, and they make the case it’s a good thing. I don’t agree, but at least they’re honest about it.

It’s only in the USA, and a few other boneheaded English-speaking countries that still have a monarchy, that we pretend capitalism is about a free market.

@Tropical_Willie According to your logic, everyone needs a permit. I sell my services as a machinist to my employer. And if you treat intangibles the same as physical objects, you’re just not really equipped to deal with this topic any more than the US government is capable of legislating the internet; there’s core concepts that you just don’t understand.

@ibstubro KISS? Really? Wow, that dates you. Are you sure you’re not 90+? This isn’t the first time you’ve seem stuck decades in the past.

My comment, @Darth_Algar, was
“Incidentally, music is an art, so Kiss should get to set up in Central Park for free.”

Did you miss that the question is about artists (Kiss) getting the sell (charge for) their art free of charge on public land (Central Park)?

The question, and my reply, is not about allowing artists to give their work away on public lands

Actually, @jerv, I chose Kiss because I have a good friend of mine that wanted me to go see Kiss in concert this spring. Um, no.
Are you sure you’re not still stuck in Middle School? Tween? Or am I overestimating you?

@ibstubro

If you feel you’re being misunderstood then perhaps you should attempt to explain yourself in a clearer manner. As it is your above post is even more clumsily worded than the first.

As I have pointed out before, @Darth_Algar, if you would simply respond to a question, rather than relying on tearing down another member’s answer, these misunderstandings would not happen. Focus on the question.
I do not feel misunderstood. You clearly responded to my answer, rather than the question, and inappropriately.

@jerv Does history get any more recent than: ”KISS? Really? Wow, that dates you. Are you sure you’re not 90+?” re: ”looking for a fight anyways”?

@ibstubro

I did respond to your question. Again, if you feel you are being misunderstood then make your posts clearer.

Exactly, @Darth_Algar. You responded to no question, but instead chose to [misguidedly] respond to responses.

Q&A refers to Question and Answer, where, in this case, @Dan_Lyons asked a Question:
“Do you think artists should be allowed by law to sell their artwork on public lands without a permit?”
that you were invited to answer.

By focusing on the the answers of other members rather than the actual question, you’re making comments that have no relation to either the question or the comment. Fluther is contextual.

I cannot make comments that are clear out of context. You will have to follow the natural progression of Question, Comment, Discussion if you want to make pertinent snarky comments on my answers. I don’t mind wit, but you have to be in the ballpark.

@ibstubro

I responded to your question. Yours. Fluffer is a discussion forum. That means discussion take place. That means conversations happen that are fluid, not static. That means that not ever post is going to be in direct response to the fist post, but rather in response to other posts in the ongoing conversation. If the requirement were simply to respond to the original post then there would be no conversation, no dialog, and indeed no need of any posting beyond the first reply to the original post. Maybe that’s what you want, but in my view (and I’m willing to bet many others view) that would be exceedingly dull. Finally if the moderators here feeling I am being out-of-line they will remove my posts. So far there is no indication that they do. It is not your place to presume to correct anyone else about their posting. If you want to go about the forum waggling your finger at other posters then I suggest you apply to become a moderator.

Okay, [Speaking slowly] “I cannot make comments that are clear out of context. You will have to follow the natural progression of Question, Comment, Discussion if you want to make pertinent snarky comments on my answers. I don’t mind wit, but you have to be in the ballpark.”
There’s the rub, @Darth_Algar: ” It is not your place to presume to correct anyone else about their posting.”
Well said. Finally we’re in complete agreement.
If you had not chosen to single out my whispered comment to the OP, misinterpret it, and post an inane comment, we’d not have had this conversation.

The finger wagging discussion amuses me, @Dan_Lyons.
“I misunderstood” = you weren’t clear enough
“I discuss” = you wag your finger
Surely you see the humor in this type of “logic”?

It wears me out after a while, @Dan_Lyons, and I’ve about reached the limit. But it’s like game for me. I can’t fathom how someone can start out from a position of being clearly wrong and just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Is is genuine self delusion? Ignorance? Contrariness? What makes a person continue a discussion when they’re soundly wrong on every point?

How can anyone follow the statement “You will have to follow the natural progression of Question, Comment, Discussion…” with the argument “That means discussion take place.”? Is the disconnect from reality intentional or literal?

@ibstubro Define “wrong on every point”. In other discussions, I’ve been wrong for having had different life experiences from you, and wrong for having different views based on those experiences. In other words, I was wrong for not being your clone.

I think you now get why I don’t like dealing with people in general, and why I can’t vote Republican. I don’t deal with contrariness, self-delusion, or willful ignorance any better than you.

@Dan_Lyons I don’t mind having the last word because I already know I’m a freak.

I honestly think you have misunderstood me then, @jerv. I think we just have different ways of expressing ourselves that make it appear more contradictory than it is. I forwarded a question your way this week, I think – I don’t consider you a ‘foe’ and I tend to speak when spoken too. i.e. I don’t say shit like ”@ibstubro KISS? Really? Wow, that dates you. Are you sure you’re not 90+? This isn’t the first time you’ve seem stuck decades in the past.” to you unprovoked. I wasn’t even snarky in my reply. Feuding and carrying around a chip are such a bore.

Oh boy…....the shanks will be coming out any moment, MEDIC!!

[Mod says] Flames off folks. Please disagree without being disagreeable and resorting to personal attacks. While this is in social, it has strayed into a flame war and it needs to stop now. Please get back to the topic at hand. Thank you.