This week, CBS Sunday Morning ran a story about holocaust survivors having their pictures taken and projected onto buildings in New York City. It was mentioned that they didn’t have any kind of permit to do so. Which led me to wonder - do you actually need a permit to do that?
You can see what they did here:
A follow up question: Do you need the building owner’s permission?
I think a sign permit might be necessary. From here, “Construction Code §28-105.1 requires Department permits for sign displays and installations.” That page also says, “If the sign is illuminated and extends beyond the building line, an annual illuminated sign permit may also be required.”
The artist needed the subject’s permission to use their photos. If they obtained a release it might have been broad enough to allow this.
The building owners have some sort of case, but it’s difficult to say what the damages are. They probably are entitled to control the way their building looks and even if it’s not a permanent change that doesn’t damage the building it still impedes their right to control the appearance of the building. Imagine a simpler case of light being used to block the image on a billboard.
That’s construction code. Does it apply when there is no physical sign? The lights don’t change anything about the existing and already approved structures.
This CBS News article is about digital projections on Trump Tower during the vice-presidential debate last year.
David Schwartz, a trial attorney in New York City, told CBS News it’s illegal to project digital signs in New York City for longer than 60 seconds without a permit.
“The Department of Buildings and the New York City code requires a permit, even for digital signs and animated signs. We have a very extensive sign law where you have to get a permit to put up a sign, but now, in the age of digital signs, the laws have been amended to include digital sign permits as well, as long as you’re keeping it up for over 60 seconds,” he said.
“It’s not like anyone’s going to go to jail over it, but it is punishable by a fine. And in this political season, maybe it’s just the cost of doing business,” Schwartz added.
This is how New York City defines “sign”
" * Per ZR §12-10, a sign is defined in relevant part as: any writing (including letter, word, or numeral), pictorial representation (including illustration or decoration), emblem (including device, symbol, or trademark), flag, (including banner or pennant), or any other figure of similar character, that: (a) is a structure or any part thereof, or is attached to, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a #building or other structure#; (b) is used to announce, direct attention to, or advertise; and (c) is visible from outside a #building#."
As with most municipal sign regulations the definition of ‘sign’ is necessarily extremely broad. Flashing photographs of Holocaust victims is intended to direct people’s attention to the images and would fall under the “or in any other manner represented on a building” provision. So an argument could certainly be made it’s a sign. The Supreme Court ruled on Reed v Gilbert about 10 years ago that municipalities in setting their sign regulations can’t really differentiate between commercial speech and political or other forms of speech. They can only regulate the place and manner in which signs may be displayed.
Interesting that it’s limited to the outside of buildings. If you used a laser projector to project disturbing images through the building windows and onto their internal walls in a way that’s not visible from the outside, but still very annoying to the occupants, technically that’s not a sign…? Probably would still run afoul of other regulations, though.
But I guess the whole point of civil disobedience is to protest unjust laws. If they’re gonna let some signage regulation stop them, that’s not really disobedience…
(edit: was thinking more about the Tesla projections, not the Holocaust or DNC ones)
Depends on your jurisdiction, but yes you would be required to get approval for projecting images. That is as the proponent, and you will probably also be asked to demonstrate that you have the land-owner’s or building owner’s consent.
If it is a heritage building there may be additional requirements and restrictions, however there are many global events like Vivid in Sydney which are centred on historic urban centre light shows, and you will find son et lumiere shows at other historic sites, so its not a blanket prohibition, but one where light shows are part of the overall heritage interpretation.
Someone tried that last fall in a suburb of St. Louis. Turned out to violate both local ordinances regulating the size of a sign, and failure to get permission from the owner.
That guy immediately stopped projecting when contacted by authorities, after which he was not cited.
In many residential areas you may light your own yard and buildings but cannot directly illuminate a neighbor’s buildings or yard. Yeah, I know, this is vague and light propagates in every direction. The way I interpret it is that if you may have a non focused light like a typical one over a door way and it can be seen from next door that is OK. But you can’t shine a focused spot light on them.
The code is quite lengthy and I am not going to quote it but you are required to list expected illumination levels in foot candles for 5 feet outside your property lines. Any direct lights must have sharp cutoffs at the line.
Aren’t these projections technically a form of light pollution?
Sure, but light pollution isn’t regulated at all in most US jurisdictions (some cities do have ordinances).
Personally, I’d be worried about the bright light shining in through a window into someone’s eyes. Laser or not, anything that makes a visible image on a building is going to be very bright.
In addition to public law restrictions that might require you to get a permit, there’s the question whether a projection not authorised by the owner of the building (as opposed to some government authority) constitutes nuisance in the tort law sense. The answer to this question is most likely no, unless the projection is so bright as to interfere with the life or work of the people inside the building; here is a law journal article on this, citing precedents.
The code may apply to the emitter even if it doesn’t cover the display.
So could I legally display a swastika (via light) on someone else’s building?
In the example I cited the projector guy was told he didn’t have permission of the property owner (in that case it was the city water department, but I think it would be true for a private owner as well.)
You wouldn’t commit nuisance, but you might still violate some other law in doing so.
There’s also a special case of displaying moving images near a road so that they may distract drivers. Usually road authorities have strong reserve powers (and legal resources) to stomp on potential safety risks even though they don’t own the building or control the activity space - line of sight is sufficient.
In Germany, it may be a criminal offence; if it involves nazi imagery: