9 ms·
Is projecting a message onto the wall of a building a trespass?
- matthewmcg 10y agoFrom 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 10y agoI'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 10y agoCertainly in British English it would literally mean being tied to a stake and set on fire.
- dspillett 10y agoIt 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 10y agoI'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.
- chippy 10y agoIt is not even true as a metaphor. He died in his own bed (albeit under house arrest) due to "fever and heart palpitations"
- tremon 10y agoSo he was poisoned? ;)
- johnm1019 10y agoas a native US english speaker, my take is that if the method of death is specified, it's specific: burned at the stake, hung, stoned, decapitated. If I wanted to be general, I would say, "was sentenced to death." There the method is left to the reader.
- manarth 10y agoI've always understood the expression in its literal sense. Joan of Arc is a well-known example who was executed in this way.
- headShrinker 10y agoHe died of natural causes. If I'm remembering from history class, he planted some of his work with a colleague to be published after his death, as a sort of death man's switch.
- dredmorbius 10y agoBritish punishment descriptions are quite literal. Being hung, drawn, and quartered meant literally "Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces)." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered Others are included in a more general article on capital punishments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_methods_of_capital_punishment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_methods_of_capital_p...
- DoubleMalt 10y agos/Galileo/Giordano Bruno/g
- jschwartzi 10y agoAlso, he wasn't punished for positing a heliocentric model, but rather for writing a book with a character named Simplicio(idiot in Latin) who parroted the same arguments against heliocentrism as the pope. This was taken as him calling the pope an idiot.
- emjoes1 10y agoSigh indeed...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- amelius 10y ago> 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?
- donkeyd 10y agoHow about an advertisement via radio waves that enters everything in its path?
- abstractbeliefs 10y agoThe top post, that's far more interesting, as it is immediately perceivable without equipment. This isn't the same as "broadcast radio" RF, where you can choose to simply turn off the radio.
- nxzero 10y agoAgree, more comparable example related would be sound ordnance and freedom of speech. There are a number of laws related to endangering the public using light; for example, the issues related to lasers and airplane pilots.
- donutz 10y agoYou the property owner can turn off your radio, sure, but what if the radio is broadcasting fart sounds? You wouldn't want to have the reputation of the business where customers could turn on their radio to hear fart sounds, would you? Or embarrassing facts about you or your business, maybe. Or worse. Hitler speeches?
- adrusi 10y agoIf they have to opt to turn on their radio, and tune to a frequency, how is that substantially different from just using their cell phone to read bad reviews about your business? Besides, jamming radio signals off of your own property is illegal, so this is only really relevant for ham bands.
- 10y ago
- dTal 10y agoNo, 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 10y agoMostly, 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 10y ago> Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? I'm not 100% $ure, but I have my $u$picion$...
- pc86 10y agoHave 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.
- Mathnerd314 10y agotl;dr: sue for nuisance instead of trespass
- robhu 10y agoIf it's OK to shine lights at a building, is it OK to spread smoke towards it?
- abstractbeliefs 10y agoFrom 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 10y agoUnless 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 10y agoI 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.
- manarth 10y agoWhat 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 10y agoBetter the legislature to make law than the judiciary.
- nkrisc 10y agoThat's fine. Maybe new laws are needed if it's a problem that isn't covered under current law. Laws should change with time.
- dspillett 10y agoNo 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.
- pc86 10y agoNo you wouldn't. > action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. It is neither damage nor destruction unless you use a nearly incomprehensible definition of either word. You might be able to call it disturbing the peace but that's criminal and not civil so removes some ability to seek redress from the building owner.
- phire 10y agoVandalism includes defacement too, even if the defacement is fully reversible (such as spray-painting cleanable surfaces). According to Wikipedia, throwing shoes over powerlines already counts as vandalism (though I wouldn't mind a citation on that). If throwing shoes over powerlines (which anyone can agree is fully reversible) then you should be able to argue that projecting light is vandalism too. Actually, projecting light is worse, is't not actually possible for the target can clean up the defacement, short of forcing you to turn the projector off.
- pc86 10y agoSpray paint is destructive, especially if the surface underneath is painted and removal of spray paint removes that paint as well. I have no idea if shoes over power lines is actually vandalism or not, I'm willing it is in some areas (Los Angeles? NYC?) and not in others (Duluth? Fargo?).
- lorenzhs 10y agoIf I smear insults on your shopfront window with a whiteboard marker, is that not vandalism? It leaves no trace and takes only a minute to remove, no special equipment required.
- atemerev 10y agoIs constantly following you with a laser pointer a stalking?
- dredmorbius 10y agoIf 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 10y agoHow about a virtual billboard in your living room? On your webpage? In your Pokémon game?
- datr 10y agoFunnily 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.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoUh, 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 10y agoThat 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 10y agoIf 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.
- brador 10y agoI 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?
- patrickmay 10y agoIt'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 10y agoThe 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)
- saintjohn 10y ago"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 10y agoThis case needs a story written with a judge named Simplicio.