AuthorTopic: PROJECTION BOMBING - 8 steps  (Read 1241 times)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14695
    • View Profile
« on: May 19, 2017, 05:44:46 AM »

 A tutorial by The Graffiti Research Lab, the Eyebeam OpenLab and Paul Notzold.

Outdoor digital projection in urban environments is a great method for getting your content up big before the eyes and in the minds of your fellow city inhabitants. This tutorial comes out of trial and error and it works. But please be careful. Helpful comments on safety and alternative methods are encouraged. The majority of this tutorial is aimed toward using a 2500 lumen projector (or smaller), if you have access to something more powerful you might want to skip straight to step 6.

Thanks to Zach Lieberman for among many other things penning the phrase “Projection Bombing". And huge props to Krzysztof Wodiczko for bring this technology into the streets.

To see examples of this system in use check out the following examples:

    G.R.L. Drip Sessions (4000 lumen projector)
    G.R.L. Interactive Architecture (4000 lumen projector)
    Textual Healing (2500 lumen projector)
    Graffiti Analysis (4000 lumen projector)

Textual Healing photos show a 2500 lumen projector in use, while all others show a 4000 lumen projector:

Part: DC to AC Power Inverter
Size: 600W - 1200W
Average Cost: $80 - $150
Note: Power inverters come in a range of sizes. The more powerful your projector the more watts you will need from your inverter. We have had good luck with a 600 watt inverter used with a 2500 lumen projector. Any inverter larger than 1200W will need to be hardwired onto the battery (rather than clips / jumper cables). Power inverters can be purchased online or at auto parts stores such as PepBoys.

Part: Digital Projector
Note: 2000 ANSI lumens is a recommended min. value for projecting anything bright enough to be viewed outdoors in the city.

Part: VGA Cable (male to male)
Average Cost: $10

Part: Car
Note: Whatever car you have available should work, but vehicles with larger engines will keep the battery recharging at a faster rate and allow you to project for longer. UHAUL cargo vans work well because they are cheap if you don't drive around much (they bill by the mile), the engines are big, and they are easier to get away with parking in creative locations.
Suggested: UHAUL Cargo Van
Cost: $19.95   $.99/mile

Part: Laptop
Note: Any laptop that you can plug into your digital projector will work.

Optional Part: 200 Watt DC to AC Power Inverter (with cigarette lighter attachment).
Note: Powering your laptop from a secondary inverter off the cigarette outlet in your car can be a good way to project for longer than your laptop battery will allow. Don't try plugging the digital projector into this smaller inverter or you will blow a fuse in your dashboard. Similarly, don't try to plug your laptop and digital projector into a single 600W inverter, overloading can damage the inverter.

Note from RESISTOR: This knowledge comes from first hand experience and involves the element fire.

Part: DC Battery (Optional)
Note: This tutorial will focus on describing a process for getting a projection system up with a limited set of common tools. More elaborate projection systems can be created using an additional car battery or a 50-100 Watt or more deep cycle marine battery. An additional battery or batteries can be chained in parallel with your car battery. You can make your set-up as elaborate as you need it to be. This tutorial will just focus on the basic equipment and process you need to project from you car battery.


If you have reached this far in the tutorial you probably already have an idea of what you'd like to project. If not consult your local graffiti writer... they tend to have LOTS of good ideas. If all else fails project this.


Go Full Screen:
There is nothing hardcore about the Windows or Mac operating systems so don't let people see them when you are projecting. Launch your files full screen so that your content is the only thing people see. I usually go so far as to keep the lens of the projector covered until my files are up and running.

Hide Edges:
Whenever possible use a black background so that the edges of the projection will blend unnoticeably into the wall in which it is projected on. 4:3 rectangular projections tend to ruin the magic.

High Contrast:
Colors and grey tones often get lost in the ambient light that is inevitable in most outdoor projection situations. To help combat this use true white and black values in your media as much as possible.

Match Surroundings:
Be intentional with where your project. There are lines, edges, curves, and surfaces all over the city waiting to display your message, make sure you don't treat them all in the same way. Good projections will fit into the architecture they are projected on.

To aid in some of the suggestions mentioned above I have included a simple piece of software, which I have found to be very useful. This simple application allows you to open a quicktime movie and display it full screen. The app also allows you to scale, drag and rotate your movie using key combinations. Download the application below. If you are running the PC version ("GRL_qtProjection.exe") place your .mov files in the same folder as the .exe file. If you are running the MAC version ("") CTL   click the application and go to "Show Package Contents". Place your .mov files in the "Contents/Resources" folder.

When you launch the .exe file it will display the movie in the folder full screen, starting with the first clip in alphabetical order. Other .mov clips in the same directory can be loaded in with the number keys. Once the clips are on screen you can scale, move, and rotate it to best fit the surface you are projecting on. Making these alterations in the software is much easier than constantly having to move the car and projector around. Click and drag the mouse on the screen to move the .mov clip. Keyboard controls are as follows:

'z' - mouse controls rotation
'x' - mouse controls position
'c' - mouse controls scale

'a' – set rotation axis to the Y axis
's' – set rotation axis to the X axis
'd' – set rotation axis to the Z axis

'r' - resets rotation, position, and scale to 0

'1'-'9' - loads in up to ni9e .mov clips from the applications directory in alphabetical order.

If nothing else this software can save you the $29.99 cost of buying Quicktime Pro just to play your .mov files full screen.

Download PC version
Download MAC version

Source Code:
Download PC source code / project folder in CodeWarrior
Downlad MAC source code / project folder in XCODE

(written in C   using the Open Frameworks code library developed by Zach Lieberman and friends at Parsons)

Finding a good location to project is the most important factor in getting your name up really big and really bright. You can make up for having a less powerful projector by paying close attention to the spots you pick, the lighting conditions, surface color, the distance from your car to the projections surface, every detail down to the audience that will see it. Below are suggestions for picking good projection locations:

Low Ambient Light:
Street lights, spotlights, illuminated advertisements; these are your enemy. Search for surfaces that are as far from light sources as possible. In some cases you might be able to temporarily cover certain lights with a heavy jacket or blanket, but in general fighting ambient light is a loosing battle. Don't even bother scouting for spots in the day time as you will end up getting your heart broken when you come back at night and find that your perfect spot is ruined by a single street light.

Bright Surface Color:
White surfaces will reflect much more light than dark ones. White stone, white tile, and painted white walls are ideal projection surfaces. It is possible to project on darker surfaces like brick but you will need to get the projector closer to the wall and hence not be able to get your imagery as big.

No Glass:
Avoid walls with a lot of windows and glass. Because light passes through glass instead of being reflected these areas of your image will appear blank.

Unobstructed View:
Trees, telephone poles, and traffic signage can all pose problems with getting a clear projection path. Placing the projector on the roof of the car will at least get you above most people and automobile traffic that might interfere.

How far you are away from your target projection surface has a lot to do with how big you can get your image. At a certain distance, however, you will start to loose brightness. It's a tradeoff but usually brighter and smaller is more noticeable than big and washed out. Depending on the lighting conditions and the color of the projection surface aim to position the projector between 4 - 10 traffic lanes away from the wall.

After going through all this trouble you want people to see your stuff, so make sure to pick spots where there is a lot of automobile and/or foot traffic. Areas near bars and clubs are good bets, especially later when they start letting out for the night.

Available Parking:
You will almost never find a legal parking spot that also meets all of the conditions listed above. The good news is, however, that once you pop your hood and start messing around with the battery most people will assume you are having car troubles and give you a break. This is accentuated if you are in a UHAUL van, then people will think you are moving and having car troubles.... “what a bad day they are having”.

I have never had a problem with people trying to mess with any of the equipment while doing a projection, but that could just be because of my generally thug-ish demeanor. It could be a good idea to bring a few friends. You should always roll deep.

I have had two encounters with police, one ended with them running my ID and letting me go, and the other ended with the cop saying, "Oh this looks cool, sorry, I had to come check it out because someone called and said there were some middle eastern looking people hanging out by the monument." This was probably because it was a city monument and because RESISTOR was crawling through the bushes with a camera wearing a ski mask. It is my understanding that it is legal to project in NYC as long as it is not over top of someone else's advertisement.

Click here to view locations in Manhattan and Brooklyn that I have found to be good projection locations.


Placing the projector on the roof avoids getting a lot of shadows from pedestrians and automobile traffic. If a slightly more clandestine setup is what you are after place the projector on a box inside the car so it points out the window. Run the VGA and power cable from the projector in through the window.

Place the inverter on the dashboard on the same side as the car battery. Snake the cables through the crack between the door and the car (not through the window). This will avoid ripping it off the dashboard when you inevitably forget about it and swing the door open. If its your car and you are hardcore, get a drill and make a hole under your dashboard to run your cables directly to the car battery

Secondary Inverter (optional):
Plug this into your cigarette lighter.


Open the hood and locate the car battery. Make sure the power switch on the power inverter is turned off and nothing is plugged into it. Connect the red cable from the power inverter to the positive battery terminal first, and then connect the black cable to the negative battery terminal.

If you are careful about closing the hood you can run the cables through the crack between the hood and car. Otherwise, just leaving the hood popped open can make it look like you are just having car troubles.

Turn on the power switch of the power inverter. Depending on what model you have you should see a green light come on and hear the soft whir of the fan turning on (if something else happens check the alarms listed below). If you have a green light plug in the power cable from the digital projector into the power inverter. Hit the power button on the digital projector. After the projector goes through its warm up cycle and the bulb turns on you will know you are in business. At this point connect your laptop and you are off and bombing.

You may want to bring a piece of cardboard to set in front of the projector as you go through the process of booting up and connecting. This is will allow you to see if it is recognizing your laptop, and you will spare your potential audience from having to watch you boot up windows, find your files, and launch your application.

Warning alarms and signals will vary on different models, but the warnings for the Vector brand inverters are as follows:

    A continuous alarm signals that there is a bad wiring connection. Take this one seriously. One time I tried to ignore it and my inverter starting shooting fire out the back and nearly caught the dashboard of the rental car I was using on fire. Check the connection on the battery to make sure you have a tight connection on both power and ground.
    A less constant audio alarm is a signal that the voltage of the battery is low.
    A red light with no audio alarm is a signal that there is too much power being drawn from the inverter. Try plugging in less stuff.


If you have the means and interest in this form of protest, go to the website to get the next 3 steps

Mark Twain — 'There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.'

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14695
    • View Profile
You’re running a restaurant — or maybe a mosque or an abortion clinic. Union members stand on a public sidewalk outside the restaurant and project light onto your wall that causes a message to appear on your wall: It says the restaurant got cited for health code violations. Or it says “this business hires scabs.” Or anti-Islam protesters project a Muhammad cartoon on the wall, or antiabortion protesters project an image of an aborted fetus. Can you stop this by going to court and getting an injunction, on the theory that the projection onto what is, after all, your wall is a trespass?

This issue has come up in at least several recent cases, all involving union speech — but it could equally involve other kinds of protests. The only one I’ve seen that has yielded written opinions is Int’l Union of Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 15 Local 159 v. Great Wash Park, LLC, 2016 WL 4165919 (Nev. Ct. App. July 29). And one of the opinions is very interesting indeed.

1. The opinion for the court is brief. It notes that different states adhere to one of two approaches: Under the traditional rule, “a trespass only occurs ‘where the invasion of land occurs through a physical, tangible object.’ ” “Tangible” here means more than microscopic; smells wafting from a pig farm, for instance, are borne by physical objects, but they aren’t trespass. Under the modern rule, “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].”

Nevada precedents hadn’t resolved which theory applies, but there was no need to decide, the majority concluded, “because Local 159 did not commit trespass using either theory. Jurisdictions that adhere to either doctrine have stated that light is intangible. Because light is intangible, Local 159 did not commit trespass under the traditional theory. And because the light did not cause damage to GWP’s building, Local 159 did not commit trespass under the modern theory. … Because we conclude Local 159’s actions cannot constitute a trespass, the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.”

The court rejected the union’s arguments that the injunction violated the First Amendment or was preempted by federal labor law. If the Nevada Legislature wanted to bar projecting images onto a wall, it could do so — but the common law of trespass did not impose such a prohibition, the court’s opinion held.

2. Judge Jerome Tao, though, wrote a much longer concurring opinion (in addition to joining the court’s opinion) and one that strikes me as very interesting and thoughtful. First, he discussed why this case might be harder than the court’s opinion suggests:

    Virtually all of the “light trespass” cases cited by the parties, and in the court’s order, concern the potential trespassory effects of “ambient” light, by which I mean light intended to serve a legitimate ulterior purpose on a nearby property but which incidentally happens to leak or diffuse onto the claimant’s property; common examples of this include construction lighting or light reflecting off the screen of a drive-in movie theater.

    In contrast, this case involves something arguably different: a beam of light specifically and intentionally directed at the Respondents’ property and nowhere else that served no purpose other than to intentionally light up the Respondents’ building the way the Union wanted.

    Does this distinction make a difference? It seems to me that it possibly could, and if so then we are presented with a question of first impression, as almost all of the existing case law relates to ambient lighting….

    Before the district court below [and in their briefing], the Respondents argued … that by projecting a text-based light image onto the Respondents’ wall, the Union interfered with the Respondents’ property-based right to instead put their own message on that wall, or have no message there at all. Had this argument been vigorously re-asserted before us, then we would have to squarely confront it.

    But during oral argument the Respondents appeared to shift away from this argument. When asked whether what made the light image projection objectionable was that it was in the form of readable text, counsel responded that whether the image was readable or not was not the problem; the problem was that the light image altered the appearance of the property, and the property owner possesses the right to control the appearance of the property at all times.

    Whether they intended it or not, by identifying the root of the problem as the effect of the lighting upon the appearance of the property, the Respondents have rendered irrelevant the distinction between whether the light invasion resulted from ambient lighting or focused lighting, or whether it contained text or was merely color. If the argument is that the projected light image interfered with the Respondents’ right to place their own message in the same place, then the interference could be accomplished just as easily with a monochromatic beam as with a textual light image. Furthermore, the question of whether light alters the appearance of property seems to me to have nothing to do with whether that light was ambient in nature or individually directed and focused at the property; if of sufficient intensity, both could affect the appearance of the property in the same way.

    To analogize to a conventional trespass, a trespass committed by a person walking onto prohibited land would be no less a trespass if that person also happened to invade other nearby properties as well during his travels. Similarly, a pedestrian’s physical presence on the land constitutes a trespass regardless of whether he was there as part of an exercise routine utterly lacking a message, or whether he was there to make a point about something. Whether that person also trespassed onto other properties along the way, and whether his trespass was with, or free of, communicative purpose, are fundamentally irrelevant to whether a trespass occurred.

    And that is the fundamental difference between an invasion by ambient lighting or focused lighting: whether the lighting went into many different directions and lit other properties in addition to this one with no communicative purpose, or whether it went only in one direction and lit only this property to convey a message.

    By conceding that the problem was the effect that the light beam had on the appearance of the property — and not either the nature of the beam itself or the message it conveyed — the Respondents have made irrelevant the origin of the light beam, the direction of its projection, and the intent of party projecting it. Thus, the question of whether it matters that the light was only ambient lighting or rather was purposefully directed at the property is no longer at issue in this appeal. [Footnote moved: This could possibly be because analyzing the light projection based upon the message it contained might implicate questions relating to speech under the First Amendment or to federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act. [EV adds: Note, though, that Tao joined the court’s opinion, which concluded that the First Amendment and federal labor law preemption claims should be rejected.]

    Therefore, because we generally limit ourselves to answering only the question asked, I do not interpret our order here as addressing the question, which we necessarily leave unresolved, of whether it might make a difference in other cases for purpose of trespass law that the light at issue was not incidental leakage but rather was intentionally and specifically beamed at the affected property and served no other purpose than to light the Respondents’ property with a readable message.

3. Despite that, Tao concluded, the trespass issue — though close — should be resolved against a finding of trespass:

    Even if we considered the nature of the beam itself (as argued in the briefing), rather than its effect on the appearance of the property (as argued orally), I am not sure the district court injunction could stand.

    The Respondents argue that the beam of light itself is, by definition, a “tangible” thing that can “invade” real property. This argument derives from the language commonly used by various courts attempting to define the tort of trespass. According to the Respondents, light is a physical thing that can invade and therefore trespass onto property; according to the Union, it is not. Tracking the traditional judicial language, my colleagues conclude that the light projection at issue here did not constitute a tangible property invasion, and I agree.

    But what does it really mean to say that something is “tangible” or amounted to a “physical” invasion? The Respondents do not allege that their property was physically harmed or damaged in any way; that their access to the property was impeded or obstructed by the Union’s activities; or that the Union attempted to possess or appropriate any portion of the property in any way, at least in the traditional sense of physically occupying space that belonged exclusively to the Respondents by virtue of their ownership of the land under the law of real property.

    Rather, the argument made here is that the light projection constituted a trespass because light is composed of “particles” (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which the Respondents cite in their brief), and those particles are tangible and therefore capable of physically intruding across the Respondents’ property line. But whether something is “tangible” or not does not seem to me to be a proper or clear legal test, at least not one that can be readily understood and applied to a wide range of facts.

    Instead, the argument strikes me as a syllogism based upon superficial pseudo-science, and I am not sure that the outcome of this case ought to be governed by this kind of approach.

    As an initial observation, the science relied upon by the Respondents appears to be wrong, or at least incomplete. If one really wants to get into the physics of the question, light has the properties of both a wave and a particle. Scientifically speaking, light sometimes has the qualities of a particle and sometimes has the qualities of a wave, and, to make things even more complicated, it can have both qualities at the same time. So the scientific answer to whether light is a particle or a wave is that it is both; therefore, following the Respondents’ syllogism, sometimes light is arguably physical and sometimes it is clearly not. If this is our inquiry, then we are dealing with nothing more than an exercise in subjectivity, something akin to a Rorschach ink blot in which any judge can find a trespass, or not, depending on his or her personal predilections because both conclusions would be supported by the underlying science of the matter. But as a method of legal analysis, that gets us nowhere fast.

    More fundamentally, technical merit aside, scientific analysis and legal analysis are two different modes of inquiry designed to accomplish very different goals. In science, data-based objective truth is all that matters. In law, courts care about the “truth” in the sense of achieving a just (or “right”) result in a particular case; but they also care about other things and can sometimes sacrifice individual truth in order to achieve other important policy goals, such as making the law predictable, consistent, stable, and clear even if not well-matched to the facts of every individual case.

    Consequently, even if it were unequivocally true that a quantum physicist would think of light as formed of particles, that conclusion alone should not govern whether we should find a trespass here as a matter of legal analysis and underlying public policy. There is a place for science in drafting and interpreting the rules that govern human conduct, but determining what scientists may think about a matter in legal dispute is not the ultimate goal of what courts do.

    Properly framed, I think the question before us is not whether light is tangible or not, but instead: what legal right inherent in property ownership does the light projection supposedly violate? …

    Fundamentally, the right to own property is the right to exclude others from entering, using, or possessing it. In a real sense, whenever property is bought or sold, what has really been purchased is the right to sue someone in court for trespass for entering, using, or possessing the property without the owner’s permission.

    The Nevada Supreme Court has said that a trespass occurs when a property right has been physically invaded. Alternatively, the tort has also been described more broadly as protecting against “[a]ny misuse of the land or deviation from the intended use of the land.”

    But these are relatively generic phrases, and it is not entirely clear how they can be applied to the particular facts at hand…. Fundamentally, the problem here is that we are confronted with a clash between very old law and evolving new technology. 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.

    It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the tort of trespass was originally limited to physical invasions of property by people or objects composed entirely of matter; as far as anyone knew, there was nothing else that existed in the universe that could invade anything. In an era lit by wax candles, and then whale-oil lamps, and then kerosene, there was not much that one could do to another’s property with light.

    But nowadays light can be so many more things and can be used in so many more ways; searchlights, lasers, and light projectors of the kind involved in this case are now commonplace. The inquiry here is whether the bundle of rights traditionally protected by the ancient tort of trespass should be read to include the right to stop the newly-developed light projection used here.

4. And the answer to that inquiry, Tao concluded, is that the question should be treated under the tort of nuisance rather than the tort of trespass:

    The torts of trespass and nuisance are closely related, so much so that some courts have observed that expanding the tort of trespass to cover such things as light, gas, or odors effectively blurs the two torts together and makes them one. 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. On the other hand, a substantial minority of modern cases have held that light invasions can constitute a trespass so long as substantial harm results to the property. But, speaking generally, most commentators and the majority of courts consider light invasions to be better suited for the law of nuisance rather than trespass.

    I agree with the view that light invasions — at least of the kind at issue here– are better suited to be addressed by the law of nuisance than the law of trespass. The fundamental conceptual difference between a trespass and a nuisance is that trespass is the right to exclude something absolutely, while nuisance is the right to exclude something that might have to be tolerated in small quantities but may become the subject of judicial relief when it becomes excessive and unreasonable even in an urban environment. Compare Crook v. Sheehan Enters Inc., 740 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Mo.App. E.D.1987) (“Trespass is the unauthorized entry by a person upon the land of another, regardless of the degree of force used, even if no damage is done, or the injury is slight.”) and Kitterman v. Simrall, 924 S.W.2d 872, 878 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (noting that liability for trespass “exists whether or not done in good faith and with reasonable care, in ignorance, or under mistake of law or fact”) with Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427, 431 (Nev. 2013) (nuisance “may arise from a lawful activity conducted in an unreasonable and improper manner” and in evaluating whether an activity constitutes a nuisance, “it is necessary to balance the competing interests of the landowners, using a commonsense approach.”). See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 821D (Am. Law Inst. 1979) (trespass is an interference with a property owner’s right to exclusive possession of a property, while a nuisance is an interference with the owner’s use or enjoyment of the property).

    Thus, the tort of nuisance involves a balancing of competing interests with an eye toward ascertaining the reasonableness of the intrusion, while the tort of trespass is absolute and involves no such balancing. What this means for this case is that, by claiming a trespass to have occurred, the Respondents are seeking an absolute bar against the invasion of projected light, without any inquiry whatsoever into whether the intensity, duration, or other qualities of the projection were unreasonable or excessive. Indeed, the Respondents specifically argue in their brief that

        The fact that [the Union] only projected images for a limited duration of time … does not absolve it of trespass liability…. [T]he question of trespass is not one of scope or degree; rather any interference … no matter its manner or duration — is actionable.

    But while it is true that manner and duration do not matter when applied to traditional trespasses committed by people or super-atomic objects, when applied to light, the Respondents’ argument goes too far and takes the law of trespass to a place it was never meant to go….

    Human beings see things only when light is either projected by, or reflects off of, an object and enters the retina; without light, nothing is visible and the world would be dark. Thus, a property such as the Respondent’s building can only be seen at all if some source emits enough light to reflect off of the building with sufficient intensity to trigger the nerves within the eye of a human observer. During the daytime, this source can be natural rather than artificial (the sun), but, at night, artificially created and projected light (that is, excluding light from the sun, the moon, and the stars) might be necessary to light the building or else it might be invisible.

    Every property located in a densely populated urban area like Las Vegas is continually bombarded by multiple artificial light sources, including such assorted things as street lamps, commercial neon signs, neighboring porch lights, automobile headlights, helicopter searchlights, the ambient glow cast by the Las Vegas Strip over the horizon, and the like, even such barely visible things as pedestrian cell phone screens or cigarette embers. Everything that a human being can see from the property is, technically speaking, a light wave crossing the property line and invading the property.

    All of these lights affect the appearance of the property with varying intensity and duration, some brief and barely perceptible, and some with great intensity for long periods of time. If the Respondents are correct and neither intensity nor duration are relevant to whether a trespass has occurred, then all can be the subject of judicial relief no matter how transient or barely perceptible the effect on a property. If the Respondents’ argument is correct, then a court could enjoin every light visible from the property anywhere in the city — could order it all turned off — under the rubric of protecting a property right.

    [Footnote: Indeed, the Respondents light their own property with an array of lights. Surely they do not believe that the light they project stops at their property line and doesn’t intrude into neighboring properties; quite to the contrary, the very point of their lighting is to make the property visible from far away so that customers can find it at night. So, if the Respondents are correct that projected light constitutes a trespass when it crosses a property line, then the Respondents are themselves trespassing onto every neighboring property from which their property is visible.]

    Ultimately, when the question is properly framed, the answer strikes me as quite simple: I do not think that the absolute right to block artificial light emanating from somewhere off of the property — without any inquiry into its intensity, duration, reasonableness or unreasonableness — should be included within the “bundle of rights” that one acquires when purchasing a parcel of land in a densely populated urban center like Las Vegas. Trespass law does not convey the right to live in a black hole. I would therefore conclude that the light that was projected in this case does not constitute a violation of the law of trespass. The injunction below was based upon the wrong tort.

    On the other hand, simply because a property owner does not have the right to exclude all light emanating onto a property under trespass law does not mean that one must tolerate every kind of light that is beamed onto the property no matter how excessive or unreasonable it may be. In some cases, projecting artificial light onto someone else’s property might constitute an actionable private nuisance. The district court’s order contains no factual findings regarding whether such a nuisance occurred in this case, and so that question is not before us.

    I therefore agree with my colleagues, for all of the reasons set forth in the court’s order but also for the additional reasons outlined herein, that the injunction is void and a reversal is in order.

5. Finally, a practical question, but perhaps one with some legal significance: Wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to hire someone who’ll also stand on the sidewalk and project some light over wherever the protesters are projecting it? That wouldn’t make the wall look pretty, but it should be enough to make the original display illegible. If this is indeed relatively easy (and I may be mistaken on that), should that matter to the legal analysis?

There is a very good discussion on this article at.....
Mark Twain — 'There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.'

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3845
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 07:30:13 AM »
Sometime word count is upped so you don't notice the emperor wears nothing.  Light travels at 186,000 miles / second.  An image on a building vanishes just as quickly as it appears; at the speed of light.  So nothing to worry about, move along.  Use your brain cells on something that matters.

Like the fate of endangered species.

All the streams flow into the sea, but the sea is not full, and to the place where the streams flow, there they will flow again.  So it is with human ignorance.  An image, even an image of doom can only stop the flow for a moment.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 07:37:06 AM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
82 Replies
Last post April 24, 2013, 01:59:32 AM
by Surly1
1 Replies
Last post October 28, 2016, 07:51:26 PM
by Palloy
0 Replies
Last post February 16, 2019, 12:02:06 PM
by azozeo