As professional photographers, it is easy enough to brush aside the role camera phones play in today’s society. While ill equipped for professional use, such devices do allow mainstream audiences and ‘hobbyists’ to take an interest in photography – even if it is just a fleeting interest. In the grand scheme of things, there is a downside to this – forcing many to misconceive how difficult it is to become a successful photographer. On the contrary however, one could also argue that another medium of photography promotes a healthy degree of competition and encourages novices to explore the field further.
For these reasons, recent news from Apple, regarding the approval of a patent that could disable iPhone cameras at major events, has the potential to make a ripple on the wider photography industry. If you haven’t heard the news, the technology giant has been granted a patent which would utilise infrared sensors to block iPhone cameras from recording footage or taking photos in areas, or towards items, deemed prohibited for filming or photographing.
If the phones were to be aimed away from the prohibited ‘view’, which is where the data transmitters are located, one would still be able to capture other photos or videos. Alternatively, the transmitter could be configured to instruct the iPhone’s camera to apply a watermark over the content, or blur it – thus, discouraging the operator from distributing the images or videos.
We’ve all been at a concert where, almost as one, every member in the audience reaches for their phone and begins to hold it above their head – and even among the more patient of us, it’s easy to become frustrated. As such, one can appreciate the technology is best served to address a pretty annoying issue. But it also has beneficial uses in other applications, namely, preventing the issue of copyright infringements, particularly at museums or comedy shows. There are also benefits in secure locations such as airport screening and immigration, as well as banks and the like.
However, while we’ve become accustom to patents being exclusively owned, there’s little guarantee that other ‘copycat’ companies, or even governments in less stable countries, won’t create their own adaptation or use the technology in an unbefitting manner to regulate the public. Some would even contend that the technology forms a violation of one’s freedom to communicate and illustrate the truth – as demonstrated by numerous examples in the US, where mobile phone footage has captured instances of police brutality.
Meanwhile, among those who rely on their phone to develop any sort of affiliation towards photography and filming, it is possible they may start to lose their interest. But there are also other potential movements in this space, which just as likely, cannot be discounted. On the one hand, photography ‘hobbyists’ reliant on their iPhone could easily ditch the brand and head towards one of many other competitors. What’s more, one cannot discount the possibility that people will instead turn towards more specialised photography gear, renewing a sense of interest in the industry and potentially opening the door for more competition.
While this technology is merely a patent at this stage, and many patents often fail to materialise into anything else, it’s worth noting that the next time you see a bunch of iPhone-waving fans at a concert, there’s every likelihood they won’t be in a rush to put their cameras down any time soon.
