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.
On 11/03/15, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435