Photo Blocker

Press Kit

Hi-Resolution Images for Print and Video

Reflector™ Cover Umeno International Corp Dealer

PhotoBlocker™ Spray Can

Click image to download

Our products were tested independently and vigorously investigated by Denver department, Fox 31 NEWS, CBS Early Morning Show South, African , Australian , SWEDISH TV, Dutch , Channel 9 in Ohio, KARE 11 in Minnesota, Tech-TV, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and many other news agencies. Additionally, we have sold several hundreds of thousands of cans world wide and the complaint or product failure is less than 1%. We currently protect over 2 Million license plates and possibly saved motorist over 1 billion dollars in fines.

Click to watch videos of test results by and media

TV News Coverages: Do our products work? Are they legal? See for yourself!

Click on the links below to watch newscasts. The streaming video files will pop up in a new window.

Denver FOX 31 Speed Cameras in Australia Wrongfully Ticketing City Buses & Cars (Part II)

CBS 29 News Private companies making HUGE profits! It’s NOT about safety.

TECH TV “It works! You can beat Big Brother!”

Australian TV It’s a trap. Yellow lights are being shortened to generate revenue.

KXAN: Austin, TX “It blinded our cameras!”

ABC 7 “Over 700 cans sold in less than half a day! It works!”

Click here for additional videos and test results from the media
Click here to read articles, testimonials, and print news coverage.

  • License-plate spray foils cameras
    Steve Sexton, Washington Times – Jul 03, 2003

    Motorists have litigated against them, fired bullets at them and thrown garbage on them — all to get back at the cameras that have caught them in the act of running a red light or speeding …
  • Beating the Speed Trap: NBC Survey Shows 82% Support for PhotoBlocker Spray
    Eric Minor, NEWS 9 – Feb 06, 2006

    ” …Beating cameras has become big business and one of the hottest countermeasures is a spray called “PhotoBlocker.” …
  • Survey Shows Support for PhotoBlocker License Plate Spray, Media Test Proves It Works
    PRWEB – Feb 23, 2006

    A recent survey of motorists in Ohio shows overwhelming support for the use of PhotoBlocker spray to prevent unjust speed camera and red-light camera tickets. A television news crew tested the spray and reported that it works.
  • Valley Drivers Have a New Reason to Smile forPhoto Radar Cameras
    Scottsdale, AZ
    a clear spray called PhotoBlocker™, that when applied to your license plate is invisible to the naked eye yet renders your plate illegible to photo radar cameras by reflecting the flash.

Most state laws require your license plate to be visible to the naked eye. They do not, however, require it to be photogenic.

NOTE: We do recommend that customers check their local motor vehicle code as to the legality of the use and purchase of our products.

Corporate Info:
PhantomPlate designs and manufactures passive anti-photo-radar defenses. We have been in business since 1996. We are based out of Harrisburg PA. Over the years we have grown leaps and bounds into the world’s largest manufacturer.

Proven Products:
Our products have been independently tested and proven by several TV Stations and automotive magazines. Our independent dealers and distributors have sold PhotoShield and PhotoBlocker to tens of thousands of motorists around the world. 

PhantomPlate Inc.
P.O.BOX 61212

Our products are sold in 23 countries. We sell our products in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, South Africa and South America. 

The future is bleak for motorists but not for us.

We expect demand for our products to grow as more and more cities are implementing photo enforcement programs. As the number of cameras deployed increases more and more unsuspecting motorist will be receiving tickets in the mail regularly. With fines ranging from $50 – $650 and the possibility of increased insurance premium motorist will be forced to use our products to avoid overzealous prosecution.

Over the past 20 years motorist around the world have paid fines in excess of 10 billion dollars. In 2001 there were 19 cites in the US that were using cameras. In 2006 there are 198 and climbing. By 2010  the number of US cities using cameras will exceed 1000 and millions of motorist will be victims regularly for going 5-10 miles over the speed limit and/ or for allegedly running lights that have unrealistically short yellow light cycles.

Naturally, demand and use or our e-Book Fight Back “How To Fight Red Light and Speed Cameras In Court and Win” will increase. Additionally, we expect to see sales of our PhotoBlocker SprayPhotoShield Cover and Reflector Cover will increase exponentially.
Click here to read articles on the future of cameras and PhotoBlocker sales

  • District expands camera program
    Tarron Lively, The Washington Times – Oct 14, 2005

    D.C. officials this weekend will expand their automated -enforcement program, even though a record-low percentage of motorists are speeding through the District … Critics of the program attacked the expansion as the District’s latest effort to reap more revenue from cameras, which have generated about $117 million in fines since the program began in 1999 …
  • Arizona State Appeals Court Photo Radar Decision
    Full text of the 1992 Arizona State Appeals Decision forbidding the mailing of speed camera tickets.
  • Photo-Enforced Fines
    The City of Berkeley, California, is about to give an Australian company an incentive to maximize citations. The red-light camera system will pay the manufacturer $48 out of every fine extracted from motorists. The city will get $161 per ticket.

Why do people need PhantomPlate products?

Cameras cause accidents and they do not save lives. They do not work. 

  • Virginia DOT Study Shows Cams Increase Injury Accidents
    The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents.A brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occurred where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia’s camera law — motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a “definite” increase in rear-end accidents and only a “possible” decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries — the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.

    This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.

  • Do red light cameras reduce accidents or generate revenue?
    Chicago Tribune
    Recently, Mayor Bill White convinced City Council to approve red light cameras, ostensibly to improve safety. However, some of us think it’s more likely a new way to generate revenue, kind of like $AFEclear.
  • Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)
    A December 2003 study sponsored by the Ontario, Canada government finds increase in accidents and fatal rear-end collisions from red light camera use.
  • Safety Benefit of Red-Light Cameras in Doubt (press release) – Jun 19, 2005

    … The Liverpool report termed this as “regression to the mean.” The findings of all these reports are not a surprise to the makers of …

Cameras make mistakes and innocent people are getting unjust tickets.

  • Australia: Camera Fines Man Driving 88 in a 90km/h Zone
    Some 119 Australian motorists have been ticketed for driving under the speed limit.
    Officials admit that 119 motorists have received speeding tickets on the Hume Highway in Victoria, Australia after speed camera contractor Tenix input the wrong speed limit into a speed camera. On July 21, the device was set up to ticket anyone driving 80 km/h on a stretch of the road that actually had a 90km/h speed limit.
    Neither the nor Tenix ever discovered the error. When Frank Torzillo, 49, received his fine in the mail for driving 88km/h, he knew he wasn’t guilty. He enlisted the help of former speed camera operator Graeme Marr to help him prove his own innocence. Together they discovered the speed limit discrepancy after visiting the scene of the “crime.” As a result of their efforts, the government will be forced to refund nearly A$20,000 to innocent drivers. Tenix has suspended the camera operator responsible for the errors.
    “I have always stated — from the day of my resignation on August 20, 2004 — about incorrect set-ups, operators forced to use faulty cameras, and other incorrect happenings that would cause motorists to be incorrectly issued with infringement notices,” Marr told the Herald Sun. “Mr Torzillo’s saga adds to my claims that supervision is sparse, and [that] operators who have no feelings for motorists will set up the speed cameras to raise revenue.”
    Victoria Premier Steve Bracks has rejected new calls for an audit of the speed camera system which last year refunded A$26 million to motorists who lost their license from inaccurate speed camera citations.
    “Victoria is Australia’s most secretive state when it comes to speed cameras,” Shadow Transport Spokesman Terry Mulder said. “However, Steve Bracks’ desire to be Australia’s most money-hungry leader is no secret.”
    Source: Speed camera bungle (Herald Sun (Australia), 8/25/2005)
  • UK Officials Admit Speed Cameras Make Mistakes
    Suffolk, UK officials admits to a well-known camera error.
    The officials responsible for operating speed cameras in Suffolk, UK have investigated the case of a bus driver who received a 81 MPH camera ticket who happened to have an electronic log recording that proved he was actually driving 29 MPH at the time. Terry Marsh with Suffolk SafeCam told the London Times that, “It is known that it is possible for a camera to record a speed inaccurately under sets of very rare circumstances. I think all camera operators have been aware of this since cameras were introduced.”
    Marsh described the effect of radar bouncing off large sedans and vans in the same way that radar bounces off of the stealth bomber. The reflected beam can record the speed of a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Marsh denied that this potential for error has any effect on the current system because all tickets are double-checked by a human. He could not explain why no such check prevented the ticket from being issued in the 81 MPH bus case.
    Article Excerpt:
    Terry Marsh of Suffolk SafeCam admitted that it was generally known in the industry that speed cameras could make mistakes, but insisted that there was no need for the cameras to be changed as a human operator usually picked up any anomalies.
    Source: Speed cameras are fallible, operators admit (London Times (UK), 4/12/2005)
  • Watch Australian news agencies reporting on camera errors and malfunctions:
    Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

The simplest and most effective measure to reduce red-light running problems is to length the yellow time cycle.

  • Study: Longer Yellows Reduce Crashes
    (Texas Transportation Institute)

    The Texas Transportation Institute shows that engineering improvements are an effective alternative to cameras.The Texas Transportation Institute examined concerns that red light cameras were being used by cities that had not first exhausted available engineering alternatives such as improving signal timing and visibility. They studied individual accident reports from 181 intersection approaches across three Texas cities over three years to determine the most effective solutions for problem intersections.The study found that improving signal visibility reduced violations 25 percent. Other changes could net between 18 and 48 percent reductions. Yet they found when the yellow signal was 1 second shorter than what the standard ITE timing formula specifies as a minimum, red light violations jumped 110%. Adding an additional second to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53% reduction in violations, producing the greatest benefit of all the factors studied (2-6). When safety is the main concern, preventing crashes is more important than reducing violations. Yellow signal timing again proved most effective in reducing crashes. An extra second yielded a 40 percent collision reduction.The study also found that the vast majority of red light camera tickets are issued within the first second a light is red — in fact, the average ticket is issued when the light has been red for half a second or less. Yet right-angle crashes, which account for the majority of red-light related collisions, “with one exception, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 seconds or more of red” (5-16). In other words, tickets are being issued primarily for split-second violations where collisions are not occurring.
  • Red Light Citations Drop Below One Per Day
    Increasing Yellow Light Time at Fairfax Red Light Camera Intersection Results in 94 percent Drop in “Red Light Violations.”Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association said, “Records from Fairfax County show that increasing the time of yellow lights significantly decreases the number of red light violations. The Virginia Department of Transportation increased the yellow time on the lights at US50 and Fair Ridge Drive by 1.50 seconds on March 26, 2001. This increase in yellow time from 4.00 seconds to 5.50 seconds resulted in a 94 percent drop in citations, less than one per day, at this red light camera enforced location.”Skrum continued, “Fairfax County records show that ‘events,’ red light violations, captured by the camera fell from an average daily rate of 52.1 per day before the yellow time increase to just 2 per day afterwards, a reduction of 94 percent.

    “Fairfax County records also show that citations being issued dropped to just 0.82 citations a day on average during the 67 days after the yellow time was increased.

    “This camera was activated February 8, 2001 by Lockheed Martin under an agreement with Fairfax County. The Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for operating these signals. The decision to install a red light camera at this intersection confirms that this intersection was considered a location of serious violations with increased potential for accidents.

    “This experience should prove to any skeptic that sound engineering practices, not only work, but are preferable to exploiting motorists through the use of ticket cameras and related automated enforcement devices,” Skrum concluded.

    Fairfax County red light camera enforcement records were received from Fairfax County on July 9, 2001 by the National Motorists Association. Those records reflected camera enforcement data through the end of May, 2001 and were the most current and complete records available on the day of receipt (as stated by Fairfax County officials). It should also be noted that the average daily in this intersection is approximately 74,000 vehicles per day.

Click here to read official report on red-light cameras and accidents.

Watch a WBAL 11 (Baltimore, MD) report on the city shortening yellow-light times to trap motorists.

Watch a real camera footage ticketing the wrong motorist for a $350 ticket.

Cameras primary goal is to raise revenue and safety is a smoke screen.

  • Red-Light,Speed Cameras, and Tickets: Billion Dollar Business
    David Bresnahan, -Mar 03, 2006

    If we all use this spray on our licenseplates maybe then the politicians will get the message and do what is right– junk the cameras and lengthen the time of the yellow lights.
  • Opposition seeks Minister’s resignation for speed cameras
    The Victorian Opposition is calling for the resignation of Minister Andre Haermeyer over Victoria’s faulty speed cameras.
  • Bracks caps speed camera compo
    THE Bracks Government, in an about-face, will cap compensation to motorists who lost licenses after being caught by faulty speed cameras.

We would like to stress that we do not condone nor encourage running red lights or speeding. Running red lights is careless, illegal and outright dangerous.

Please read the following articles that support our findings and justify why people should protect themselves from prying eyes. 

Click here to read full coverage on The Weekly Standard

  • Click here to read news articles, press releases, and exposes cameras.
    • New invention helps motorists use PhotoBlocker Spray to fight unjust tickets. Red light and speed cameras have met their match
      PhotoBlocker Spray Press Release –

      Hate the idea of impersonal cameras ticketing you for driving 36 miles per hour (mph) in a 25mph zone or for running a red light that was only yellow for a split second? The antidote is in a red aerosol can known as PhotoBlocker Spray.
    • Red-Light, Speed Cameras, and Tickets: Billion Dollar Business
      David Bresnahan, – Mar 03, 2006

      If we all use this spray on our license plates maybe then the politicians will get the message and do what is right — junk the cameras and lengthen the time of the yellow lights.
    • Man Loses Job Over False Speed Camera Ticket … Could Have Been Prevented (press release) – Jun 27, 2005

      … The company’s web site at provides testimonials, as well as full details about the product and the need for marketing affiliates to help …
    • Speed Cameras Do Not Make Roads Safer, New Study
      Xtvworld (press release), India – Jun 16, 2005

      … The company’s web site at provides full details about the product and the need for Internet marketing affiliates to help get it to more …
    • Safety Benefit of Red-Light Cameras in Doubt (press release) – Jun 19, 2005

      … The Liverpool report termed this as “regression to the mean.” The findings of all these reports are not a surprise to the makers of …

We can provide you with customers and dealers in your city upon your request. We will contact customers and dealers in your area and get their consent to be interviewed and/or contacted by you.

We would like to stress that we do not condone nor encourage running red lights or speeding. Running red lights is careless, illegal and outright dangerous.
NOTE: In some states it is unlawful to display on any vehicle a registration plate which is obscured in any manner which inhibits the proper operation of an automated red light enforcement system.Jacky Casteel, (WATE) Knoxville, Channel 6