
Is projecting a message onto the wall of a building a trespass? - acsillag
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/17/is-projecting-a-message-onto-the-wall-of-a-building-a-trespass-a-nuisance/
======
dspillett
No would be my quick reaction, it makes no sense and if it was then many other
things that obviously aren't would be considered trespass too.

You probably have a legitimate claim to call it vandalism though. Easily
repaired vandalism (just turn the projector off) but deliberate defacement all
the same.

~~~
pascalmemories
No, vandalism requires actual physical damage of some sort.

The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal
- some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case,
via an appeal).

They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted
definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who
could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing
projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being
fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to
suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read
appeal court decisions /and remember them/.

However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a
nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.

Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident
the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and
should be handled as that if resorting to law.

Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting
alternative legal strategies?

~~~
adrusi
Vandalism requires physical damage? So if I draw a vulgar cartoon on the side
of a church in chalk its not vandalism?

~~~
audeyisaacs
Well, it depends on where you are.

As far as I know, where I have lived most(Western Australia) it is not
considered vandalism.

This is the third result on Google for "vandalism chalk"(though it seems to
have some mixed messages):

[https://itsartlaw.com/2013/09/02/california-court-rules-
that...](https://itsartlaw.com/2013/09/02/california-court-rules-that-chalk-
art-is-not-vandalism/)

------
dTal
No, of course it's not bloody trespass. The article even says so, right at the
beginning. All the focused/ambient/intentionality/information-content
discussion is interesting, but irrelevant. Why must we insist on squeezing
radically different new situations into existing categories that were
_clearly_ designed for something else? Can we not think for ourselves, and
evaluate these things on their own merits?

~~~
abstractbeliefs
Mostly, because it's easier to abuse old and poorly written laws to our own
ends than it is to try and legislate for new problems and technology.

It seems the core of this issue is the definition of "tangible". Why does the
law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? There doesn't appear to be
any way for normal people or even lawyers to identify if something is tangible
in the way the law describes it.

~~~
linker3000
> Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording?

I'm not 100% $ure, but I have my $u$picion$...

~~~
pc86
Have you ever tried to have a clear written agreement with another person?

> _pc86 will build a WP brochure site for linker3000 for $1,500._

But you need it by a certain date?

> _add date clause_

But I'm not taking a risk that you might not have the money

> _add non-refundable deposit clause_

But what if my house gets flooded or I lose electricity for a month?

> _add Force Majeure class_

But what if you give me a bunch of stolen images to use?

> _add indemnity clause_

> _add IP clause_

But what if I violate half a dozen labor laws while completing your work?

> _add another indemnity clause_

Repeat over and over again until you have a 15+ page single-spaced contract
for a piddly $1,500 website.

Words mean things. In law, words typically mean _very specific_ things. That's
why "trespass" doesn't fit here, even though I think we can all agree you
shouldn't be able to project messages onto someone else's property no matter
what the message is or where you happen to be standing.

~~~
klibertp
I think your argument is inconsistent. First you talk about whole "clauses",
then you get back to words and you don't seem to connect these in any way.

Anyway, having a bunch of many very specific terms is hardly specific to
lawyers, that's not the problem. The problem with legalese, as I see it, is
that it lacks higher-order types and lambdas... Erm... efficient means of
generalization or specialization inline, without a need for two sentences to
add one minor detail and the need for a full, multi-paragraph clause when
adding a somewhat "standard" \- without any modifications - piece of an
arrangement.

Heck, even a simple inheritance would help (you get a GeneraIPClause and while
writing an agreement you just write `OurIPClause is GeneralIPClause with {
...modifications... }`.

~~~
pc86
My point was that when you actually look at the entire agreement and all the
possible edge cases it is meant to cover, legalese makes perfect sense in
context.

English isn't code. You don't get "higher-order types and lambdas" in English,
come on now.

------
amelius
> Is projecting a message onto the wall of a building a trespass

How about an advertisement whose light enters the private space of my car?

~~~
praptak
Read the article. Judge's opinion quoted therein suggests there is a
difference between ambient light entering private space as a side effect of
projecting a message elsewhere and focused light entering the same space with
the intent of creating the message within the space.

~~~
alanwatts
The opinion is tautological, there is no real difference.

>ambient light entering private space as a side effect of projecting a message
elsewhere

Advertisements are not designed to be projected anywhere else besides your
psyche.

>focused light entering the same space with the intent of creating the message
within the space.

Again, visual advertisements are focused light created with the intent of
inserting a message into your eyes and psyche.

~~~
GavinMcG
The difference is that the ambient advertisement doesn't meaningfully change
the appearance of your piece of property. And in any case, you have no legal
right to shut out the world.

~~~
alanwatts
>The difference is that the ambient advertisement doesn't meaningfully change
the appearance of your piece of property.

Property: a thing or things belonging to someone.

Do our minds not belong to us?

~~~
ryandrake
I just wanted to say this exchange about whether advertising can be likened to
trespass and vandalism has been very thought provoking. Your argument holds
water. Have an up-vote.

------
matthewmcg
From one of the opinions: "Trespass is one of the oldest torts known to Anglo-
American jurisprudence, dating as far back as twelfth-century England. But
back then, even the most advanced thinkers of the day were not aware of such
things as atoms, electrons, or photons ….; it would be another two centuries
before Galileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun, a revelation so
antithetical to prevailing thought that he was burned at the stake for
suggesting it."

Sigh. Galileo was not burned at the stake. At least they got wave-particle
duality mostly right.

~~~
diggan
I'm not an english native speaker, so maybe I'm wrong but I always took
"burned at the stake" as an expression for punishment which lead to death, not
as the person was literally burned at a stake.

But, as I said, I might be wrong.

~~~
robin_reala
Certainly in British English it would literally mean being tied to a stake and
set on fire.

~~~
dspillett
It is sometimes used just to indicate general punishment, particularly a
demotion or sacking, usually where is it seen as over the top or unfair. In
that case there is sometimes a link (stated or implied) to a "witch hunt" and
the person burned at the state is considered a scapegoat. e.g. "no one quite
knows where data leaked from, but John who used to be head of tech services
was burned at the stake for it".

(source: native Englishman)

~~~
richardwhiuk
I'm not sure such a usage would be entertained when talking about someone
where being burned at the stake is considered contemporary - i.e. it's only
used where the expression is deliberately hyperbolic.

------
brador
I say yes it is something, although trespass might be the wrong label for it.

Reason: you purchase or build a wall to enjoy it's features. Those might be
protecting your property, keeping out cold, or having a certain appearance. If
I have a yellow wall and you project red onto it, then you have denied me a
feature of my wall. Hence, you should be stopped from doing that.

A second concern, who is responsible for what is projected onto the wall? The
owner of the wall or the projectionist? Say someone projects some questionable
video on the wall. If the wall didn't exist the video would not be showing to
cause the concern to passing people. But it does, so who gets the fine?

------
6stringmerc
Uh, this is a convoluted approach to a pretty simply established relationship
between public and business owners / operators.

Practically speaking in my city, based on ordinances, if there's no sign that
says "Post No Bills" then "It is okay to post flyers on this building." The
flyers should be different from vandalism, in that they are not permanent nor
so flimsy as to fall off and become litter. A projection easily fits into this
category, physical or digital "bill" so to speak.

~~~
UVB-76
That sounds like a horrible relationship, and is certainly not the norm in
many cities.

As a property owner, you should not have to request (by means of a "Post No
Bills" message or other) that other people don't interfere with your property.

~~~
6stringmerc
If it's not causing damage or vandalism then I don't quite see the issue. If
the material is unwelcome then of course the property owner has every right to
take it down. Mostly this ordinance is useful for closed / boarded up
buildings, in my recollection.

------
patrickmay
It's not trespass but it is depriving the owners of the building the right to
decide how it will be used. The owners have the right to display any message
or none, this behavior denies them that control over their property.

Unfortunately, that argument was apparently not explicitly made in the suit.

~~~
dagw
_The owners have the right to display any message or none_

Not even that is necessarily true, since in many cases there are superseding
laws covering the external appearance of buildings and to what extent they can
be used as billboards (and what those billboards can and cannot display)

------
Mathnerd314
tl;dr: sue for nuisance instead of trespass

------
atemerev
Is constantly following you with a laser pointer a stalking?

~~~
dredmorbius
If I am in an aircraft, it runs afoul of various laws in most jurisdictions.

If the beam can cause injury, there's that.

If it's done in a manner meant to annoy, intimidate, or harrass, quite
possibly.

See as a general parallel paparrazi laws, in some regions. Being in public
doesn't provide you with unlimited capacity to act, particularly as that
influences others.

------
JoeAltmaier
How about a virtual billboard in your living room? On your webpage? In your
Pokémon game?

~~~
datr
Funnily enough I was looking into this stuff recently as I was wondering what
would prevent Niantic from showing adverts in Pokemon Go. Imagine playing
outside a Starbucks and getting a notification that Costa is nearby and
offering a discount.

My guess is that they could also claim nuisance.

------
robhu
If it's OK to shine lights at a building, is it OK to spread smoke towards it?

~~~
abstractbeliefs
From the TFA:

"The traditional common-law view was that property injury caused by such
things as light, gas, sound, smoke, odors, or vibrations might constitute an
actionable nuisance under the right circumstances, but could not support a
cause of action in trespass."

~~~
manarth
Unless the smoke was causing damage:

> _“a trespass may also occur when intangible matter, such as particles
> emanating from a manufacturing plant, cause actual and /or substantial
> damage to the [property].”_

~~~
hughperkins
I dont know about "substantial" but ultra-violet does technically cause
damage. You can see this in posters left in particularly sunny shop windows
for extended periods of time.

~~~
ominous
Sir, the gamma rays were set free inside my property. The children happen to
have placed themselves in their path, 5 km away.

~~~
qbrass
It's irresponsible gamma ray owners like you that give all rays a bad name.

------
saintjohn
"it would be another two centuries before Galileo proved that the earth
revolved around the sun, a revelation so antithetical to prevailing thought
that he was burned at the stake for suggesting it."

Seriously?

~~~
dredmorbius
This case needs a story written with a judge named Simplicio.

------
manarth
What I find most interesting here is the relationship between extremely old
laws and evolution in technology.

The court seemed to suggest that using old laws to tackle a new issue wasn't
appropriate:

> _" If the Nevada Legislature wanted to bar projecting images onto a wall, it
> could do so"_

If that outlook takes hold more broadly, then there would be a whole swathe of
potential issues relating to technology, communications and the internet.
Government would need to come up with a lot of new law.

~~~
ErikVandeWater
Better the legislature to make law than the judiciary.

