The best I can tell, this is just rank speculation based on someone reading a recently published patent application (they are generally published 18 months after they are filed, prior to then they are generally confidential). I wouldn't put any stock in it unless and until there is some reason to think Apple actually intends to develop this technology and use it in this specific way.
Companies like Apple file countless patent applications (i.e. they are designated as the assignees on them). Many of those don't relate to an actual intended use and won't end up being reflected in actual products or services. They are just trying to lock up ideas and possibilities, even while not knowing how those ideas might be used in the future, how they might be combined with other ideas, who else might end up trying to use them (and thus then be infringing), or if the ideas will ever have any real world use at all. Companies do this trying to carve out more and more intellectual property ownership for themselves - so that they can do things in the future, so that they can prevent competitors from doing things in the future, and so that competitors can't prevent them from doing things in the future. Patent applications are relatively inexpensive to draft, file and execute, so it is little bother for Apple and other companies to file hundreds of applications a year.
This is the only patent application I could find that might be the one this speculation is referring to and based on. The claims relate to, among other things, a camera being able to detect an infrared signal with encoded data in it, being able to decode that data, being able to to do things in response to that data (e.g. place a watermark on on image or disable some camera functionality), and being able to rout collected images to a display and/or recording mechanism. That's a neat little concept to be able to lock up, though not a particularly un-obvious one in my opinion. It may prove to be valuable IP or it may turn out to be rather worthless. Could it be used in the way suggested? Sure, but it could be used for other things as well or it could not be meaningfully used at all. As is the case with many patents, it could just be used to prevent others from doing something (or force them to pay Apple should they need or want to do something).
When reading a patent or patent application, one shouldn't assume that particular described embodiments are intended uses. That's not necessarily how it works. The descriptions are often just trying to cover as much future possibility as they can in order to give more breadth to the potential (interpreted) meaning of the claims. They are trying to make the 'invention' effectively as comprehensive - to make it represent as large a plat of land, if you will - as they can. You never know what corner of that plat of land is going to turn out to be valuable, and you don't want to find yourself arguing after the fact to the effect that
'oh yeah, that's part of what I meant by the claim / invention'.
That said, is it possible that Apple would develop something like this and in return get concessions, from record labels / performance artists, that make their devices more functional for consumers and work in ways that other devices can't? Absolutely. They are clearly out in front of other companies in being able to secure digital rights from music labels that will make their devices more functional, and there obviously has to be some give back / trade off for them getting those rights.
EDIT: Fixed link which originally lead to the wrong patent application.
