Permit « 360Photography

RSS

Posts Tagged ‘Permit’

Yosemite’s Horsetail Fall ‘firefall’ event will require a vehicle permit this year

06 Feb

Photo by Ambitious Wench (CC-BY-SA-2.0)

For two weeks every February, Yosemite’s Horsetail Fall appears to be composed of flowing lava rather than water when illuminated by the setting sun. This beautiful illusion is referred to as a “firefall,” and it draws a large number of visitors who want to witness it in person. Due to the expanding size of these crowds, officials have announced that visitors (including photographers) will need to get a vehicle permit.

The permit requirement is an effort to deal with traffic issues and visitor safety, according to ABC7, which reports that officials are working with Yosemite Hospitality, Yosemite Conservancy, and the Ansel Adams Gallery on the matter. Details for the upcoming event are available on Event Brite where free reservations can be made.

According to the event page, Yosemite visitors planning to arrive via vehicle will need a permit to access Northside Drive between Yosemite Valley Lodge and El Capitan Crossover. Northside Drive will be closed to those without a permit from February 12th to February 26th.

A total of 250 parking permits are being offered for reservation on the Event Brite site.

The reservation requires visitors to provide vehicular information, including license plate, car make and model, and car color. Those who successfully reserve a spot will then need to pick up their permit from The Ansel Adams Gallery on the day of the reservation. Additionally, 50 or more first-come, first-serve permits will be offered at the gallery until 3PM each day.

According to the event page, in addition to getting a vehicle permit for the designation part of Northside Drive, visitors who want to see the firefall can either take a Yosemite Hospitality guided tour or hike to the viewpoints.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

No, you don’t need a $100 permit to take snapshots in Laguna Beach

23 Jun

Photo by Don Graham. Licensed under CC 2.0

The city of Laguna Beach has cleared up some confusion about its photography permit policy. A broad interpretation of one of its two photography permits created a minor uproar recently, as many people took it to mean that the city was requiring a $ 100 permit for anyone taking photos. It seems now that this wasn’t the intention.

As it stands, the city has two permits for two different types of photography: commercial and ‘non-commercial’; the latter has a $ 50/hr rate with a minimum of two hours required. This meant, as the policy was interpreted, that anyone taking photos – including personal photos – in Laguna Beach were required to buy a $ 100 permit.

The non-commercial permit category’s vague description resulted in quite a bit of public complaint, and the city has chosen to rename it as a result, leaving only talk about true commercial photography on its website’s related permit page. The category was never intended to cover casual personal photography, according to a city official speaking to OC Weekly. Rather, the ‘non-commercial’ permit category was created as a cheaper alternative to the primary commercial permit, giving photographers an option for ‘less complicated photo shoots such as engagement photos.’

The city’s website still specifies two different photography permits, but one with a new name: commercial and ‘professional still photo.’ The latter carries the same $ 100/2hr minimum as the former ‘non-commercial’ category, explaining that this option is for ‘single camera shoots such as engagement photos, wedding photos, family portraits, holiday cards, etc.’ Nothing about the permit policy except the ‘non-commercial’ verbiage has changed. However, it is now clear that personal, non-compensated photography doesn’t require a permit.

Via: OC Weekly

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Swedish court rules drone photography is surveillance and requires a permit

25 Oct

Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a ruling that classifies drone photography as surveillance, thus meaning operators of drones with cameras would need to obtain a surveillance license – an unlikely case for members of the public. Swedish drone owners are understandably upset with the ruling, stating that it will effectively kill an entire industry. Local media outlets also find it troubling, since no exceptions are made for journalistic applications.

UAS Sweden, an organization of Swedish drone operators, plans to try to convince lawmakers that the decision is an overreaction that will have a tremendous negative impact on their industry. Either way, the policy will likely be difficult to enforce. Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet points out that local police seem unlikely to prioritize any reports of suspected unauthorized surveillance.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Wilderness photographers caught up in U.S. Forest Service permit proposal

02 Oct

A proposed directive from the U.S. Forest Service that aims to protect federal wilderness from commercial exploitation may end up restraining photographers as well. Under the proposed restrictions, any individual or entity poised to reap commercial gain from photographing or filming federal lands in the U.S. will need a permit. Read more

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Half Dome Permit Related Death?

09 Aug

Is the nearly impossible mechanism to obtain permits to hike Half Dome to blame for the death of a hiker this week?

I had an interesting conversation with my neighbor regarding the hiker that just recently perished on Half Dome this week as we’re both a 2-3 degrees of separation from her. What was an eye opener in the conversation is that few people hiked Half Dome that day because of questionable weather. Did the people who hiked Half Dome that day risk the questionable weather because it is so difficult to obtain permits? Or because there is no mechanism to redeem permits on another day if “rained out” (bigger risk being lightening)? Seems ironic that the permits could actually result in accidental deaths when they’re in place to prevent them from overcrowding.

Hikers Climbing the Cables on Half Dome – Yosemite, California

The Yosemite NPS Half Dome Day Hike site does say not to summit in bad weather, but there is no mention of a mechanism such as a “raincheck” provided by the BLM if conditions do not permit a safe summit. With such a difficult permit to obtain and such a long hike people who reach the cables might be unnecessarily tempted to ascend when they might otherwise try again another day.

Hikers Climbing the Cables on Half Dome – Yosemite, California (zoom)

From an example BLM site:

Can I get a “raincheck” after I pay my fees?

You can get a raincheck for the XXXXX permit areas only if you attempted to reach the trailhead and were unsuccessful. You may then apply for a raincheck voucher in person at the XXXXX Contact Station (or XXXXXOffice in the winter). You may redeem your raincheck voucher, at no cost, for a replacement permit dated within 30 days following your original permit, or within the same 30 day period the following year. Call the permits desk (xxx-xxx-xxxx) or the XXXXX Strip District Office (xxx-xxx-xxxx) with your voucher number to obtain a replacement permit.

Raincheck example: John Smith has a permit for 2 people to hike to XXXXX on March 18th, 2010 and he and his hiking partner are unable to get to the XXXXX Trailhead because XXXXX is flooded. Mr. Smith travels to the XXXXX Contact Station and applies for a raincheck voucher. He is issued a voucher that he may redeem for another permit before April 17th, 2010 or between March 19th and April 17th, 2011.

What are your thoughts?