From: fredxx@spam.invalid 
  
 On 19/09/2025 15:06, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 > On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 09:08:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk 
 >  wrote: 
 > 
 >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 20:39:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> That's clearly a loophole, 
 >> 
 >> That's your opinion. Another is that you don't own the public facing image 
 >> of your building, and that using a projector to realise what a few seconds 
 >> with photoshop can do leaving zero damage (due to the masslessness of 
 >> photons) is just part of life. 
 > 
 > Projecting onto a building visible from a public place requires planning 
 > permission for advertising consent. That's because, even though the 
 > projection may cause no damage to the building itself, it affects the 
 > appearance of the building in exactly the same way as painting an advert on 
 > it. And the projection may cause quantifiable harm, in the form of light 
 > pollution - both to the occupants of the building and the building's 
 > surroundings - and potential distraction (public projections are more 
 > stringently regulated where they are visible from a highway, for example). 
  
 You would think so, but with this just yards from a very busy motorway: 
    https://maps.app.goo.gl/u8qtpJvFcVPwpsVh7 
  
 I think the effect on distracting motorists is considered minimal. 
 Someone must have carried a risk assessment or crossed a few palms. 
 > None of this is related to the content of the projection. The ambush 
 > marketing perpetrated by FHM and BrewDog by projecting onto the Palace of 
 > Westminster is exactly the same, in this context, as the anti-Trump 
 > projection onto Windsor Castle. To be legitimate, all three should have 
 > applied for, and obtained, planning permission. But none of them did. 
  
 There are exemptions for temporary events and signs. 
 >> A much more fruitful approach might be to look at the fact that generally 
 >> you need to be on public land to pull of such an event, and that is 
 >> probably already covered by a mountain of laws, by-laws and regulations 
 >> that any number of agencies are able to enforce. 
 > 
 > As I said, both in the original post and this one, it is covered by 
 planning 
 > law. The specific problem is that planning law is entirely toothless 
 against 
 > this kind of very short-term projection, as it will never reach the 
 > threshold for prosecution. Which means that people can use projectors in 
 > this way with total impunity. 
  
 Planning law deals with permanent feature, whether property or use of a 
 property or signs. Not generally a temporary use. 
 >> We really don't want to go down the US route of banning ideas - which they 
 >> have just done. Because it can make you look a bit stupid. 
 > 
 > It's nothing to do with banning ideas. Just addressing a loophole which 
 > allows people to circumvent the law for the purposes of advertising. What 
 > they are advertising has nothing to do with it. 
 What is wrong with the loophole being used in this context? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)