Hello,

In Irish law, it would be difficult to escape the constitutional
dimention of any such claim in my view and also issues arising under
the European Convention on Human Rights - the main rights which might
possibly be engaged being property, freedom of expression, freedom of
association and (I suppose dubiously) privacy (can it really be said
that such a projection infringes a right to privacy? I doubt it if
privacty is to have any bounds).

Unsurprisingly perhaps, I am aware of no Irish cases on point.

Kind regards

Ger

On 11/4/15, MACQUEEN Hector <Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In Scots law, whatever the liabilities in delict or nuisance may be in this
> kind of case, there would perhaps be an enrichment liability on the
> projector if making the projection for purposes of gain, e.g. to advertise
> the availability of products or services. There are a number of cases where
> unauthorised use of another's property in circumstances where ordinarily
> such use would have to be paid for has been held to entail liability based
> on what the user would otherwise have had to pay (see MacQueen, Unjustified
> Enrichment 3rd edn, pp 11-13, for short summaries of the main cases). But
> none of these cases involves the projector doing it simply in order to annoy
> the victim, or have a laugh at the victim's expense, or intrude on the
> victim's privacy. I wonder if these would be instances for the actio
> iniuriam in Scotland, i.e. delictual and based upon the wrong of affront or
> insult.
>
>
> Hector L MacQueen FBA FRSE
>
> Professor of Private Law
>
> University of Edinburgh Law School
>
> Old College
>
> South Bridge
>
> Edinburgh EH8 9 YL
>
>
>
> Currently working at the Scottish Law Commission tel (0)131-662-5222
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jason Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
> Sent: 04 November 2015 11:42
> To: Volokh, Eugene; obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject: Re: Projecting message onto side of another's building: trespass,
> nuisance, something else?
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> What a wonderful discussion!
>
> It would seem to me that there is an important difference between using your
> rights/land in a way that has collateral effects on the land of others (the
> drive-in movie case) and a situation of using the land of others (the
> projection case). This distinction is usually captured by the law with its
> divide between the harm torts and those actionable per se but it appears
> given technical limitations trespass is unavailable. My guess, following on
> what Neil suggests, is that the Commonwealth courts would treat this type of
> nuisance as similar to the tree branch cases and would not focus very
> closely on the harm or its significance but rather would treat the use of
> the claimant's property as a substantial interference in and of itself.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> On 11/03/15, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Thanks very much – very interesting. Under American law, it appears that a
> nuisance claim requires a “significant harm,” and it’s not clear that the
> projection (especially if it happens just one evening) would qualify – or
> would it?
>
> Eugene
>
> From: Neil Foster [mailto:neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:06 PM
> To: Jason Neyers; obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject: Re: ODG: Is projecting a message onto the side of another's
> building a trespass?
>
> Dear Jason;
> Back in the day before privacy law was developed, there was a nuisance case
> decided by Young J in the SC of NSW, Raciti v Hughes (1995) 7 BPR 14,837;
> BC9501706<http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/au/legal/search/enhRunRemoteLink.do?A=0.5543622561862657&service=citation&langcountry=AU&backKey=20_T22938331667&linkInfo=F%23AU%23urj%23ref%25BC9501706%25sel1%251995%25page%2514%2C837%25year%251995%25decisiondate%251995%25&ersKey=23_T22938331659>
> where his Honour reviewed a number of cases about strong lights and held
> they could amount to a nuisance. (This bizarre case involved the defendants
> having apparently set up a system of floodlights and video cameras angled
> into the plaintiff’s property, so that whenever their neighbours entered
> their back yard, the bright light and cameras came on to record what
> happened in the back yard!)
> I have sometimes wondered whether the reason that the lights cases succeed,
> whereas we know that “view” cases fail in nuisance, is that in lights cases
> “something” (physicists can tell me if it is photons or waves or whatever)
> crosses the boundary into the plaintiff’s land (just as it is a nuisance to
> cause smoke or smells or noise to “cross the boundary”.) That rationale was
> not given in Raciti but it does provide an interesting review of light
> cases.
> I guess the interesting issue is the nature of the harm caused by the
> projection. If it is a protest and you object to your building being used as
> a poster for a message you disagree with, then there is “annoyance” and
> “upset”, which it seems is regularly protected in “amenity” nuisance cases.
> There may even be some argument about “autonomy” and the right to use one’s
> land as one chooses? All in all nuisance may sound like a more plausible
> action in the Commonwealth sphere than trespass.
> Regards
> Neil
>
>
>
> neil foster
> Associate Professor
> Newcastle Law School
> Faculty of Business and Law
>
>
> T: +61 2 49217430
> E: neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au<mailto:Firstname.Lastname@newcastle.edu.au>
>
> Further details: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster
> My publications: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/ ,
> http://ssrn.com/author=504828
> Blog:
> https://lawandreligionaustralia.wordpress.com<https://lawandreligionaustralia.wordpress.com/>
>
> MC177 (McMullin Building)
> The University of Newcastle (UON)
> University Drive
> Callaghan NSW 2308
> Australia
>
> CRICOS Provider 00109J
> [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.newcastle.edu.au/>
>
> [Image removed by sender.]
>
> [Image removed by sender.]
>
> [Image removed by sender.]
>
>
> [Image removed by sender. Website]<http://s.uon.nu/l/1>
>
> [Image removed by sender. Blog]<http://s.uon.nu/l/2>
>
> [Image removed by sender. Facebook]<http://s.uon.nu/l/3>
>
> [Image removed by sender. Twitter]<http://s.uon.nu/l/4>
>
> [Image removed by sender. YouTube]<http://s.uon.nu/l/5>
>
> [Image removed by sender.]
>
>
>
> From: "jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>"
> <jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>>
> Date: Wednesday, 4 November 2015 5:16 am
> To: "obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>"
> <obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>>
> Subject: ODG: Is projecting a message onto the side of another's building a
> trespass?
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> A poster on the American Torts Prof listserve asked the question of
> whether projecting a message onto the side of another's building is a
> trespass (or nuisance). Apparently this is becoming a popular protest
> technique in the US. Does anyone know of any Commonwealth authority
> dealing with this issue? I can think of nuisances case where the
> reflecting or throwing of light has been at issue but nothing directly
> on point.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Jason Neyers
> Professor of Law
> Faculty of Law
> Western University
> N6A 3K7
> (519) 661-2111 x. 88435
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jason Neyers
> Professor of Law
> Faculty of Law
> Western University
> N6A 3K7
> (519) 661-2111 x. 88435
>