PetaPixel

Pay Me: A Photographer’s Music Video About Copyright Infringement

Tokyo-based editorial photographer Irwin Wong created this funny Justin Bieber parody song titled “Pay Me” as a shout out to all his “photographer homies who have had their copyright infringed”.

It was shot using a Canon 5D Mark II, a Canon 24-70mm, and a Steadicam Pilot.


Thanks for the tip, Radovan!


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://blog.trushots.com Trudy

    This is magnificent. I died laughing…but good truth about IP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kushal-Das/100000186712778 Kushal Das

    awesome video :)

  • A Real Copyright Lawyer

    Let’s hope Wong licensed the music, lest Mr. Bieber and all his “musical homeis who have had their copyright infringed” have to write a rebuttal track.

    P.S.  Wong’s use of the music is not fair use.  Anyone know why?  Gold star if you do!

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    I would like a gold star! Please tell me Mr. Copyright Lawyer!

  • http://twitter.com/denMAR Dennis Marciniak

    I found this rather ironic as well.

  • Billjv

    Dude, one word…. autotune!

  • gaurav solanki

    nice approach..

  • gaurav solanki

    nice approach..

  • Solis48

    Lighten up

  • dallas

    japanese camera hunter!!!

  • Shinepoisonivy

    Awesome ;-), you make my day, cheers from http://www.facebook.com/SPI.Photography ! x PI

  • A Real Copyright Lawyer

    It wouldn’t be so bad but for the fact that Wong’s use of the music renders him just as much of a tool as the people about whom he complains in the song.

    Here’s hoping the folks at Universal Music Publishing find it just as amusing as you all do!

  • Anonymous

    I
    thought it is going to be some boring old post, but it really compensat for
    ours time. I will posted a link to the article on our blog. I am sure ours
    visitor will thought that very useful

     

  • RJ

    I don’t get it. This could be defended as a derivative parody and it wouldn’t have a commercial impact on the original market. Right?

  • http://www.plagiarismtoday.com Jonathan Bailey

    I regretfully agree with your assertion. The reason is that parody is using a copyrighted work to make fun of the work itself. Here, Wong is using the music to make fun of something else, which is more commonly referred to as Satire.

    So Wong does not have a parody “lock” on a fair use defense. However, he may still be able to argue that his use is sufficiently transformative and doesn’t harm the market for the original work to make a make a non-parody oriented fair use argument.

    In short, it’s not a clear fair use, but there are still arguments to be made both ways which, sadly, is the nature of fair use.

  • http://www.kunvay.com/ Kunvay

    We agree Jonathan. This could be a toss up if it ever came to court regarding whether it is sufficiently transformative. Our first thoughts turned to Weird Al Yankovich and his “Eat it” parody of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It”

  • http://www.plagiarismtoday.com Jonathan Bailey

    This is one of the reasons why Weird Al had a policy of always getting permission. Not only was he wanting to make sure no one was mad at him and that he had lots of friends in the industry (basically being a good guy) he also knew that not all of his parodies were actually parodies in the legal sense.

  • AN

    Threatening to shoot someone for copyright infringement is psychotic, not humorous.