题型:阅读理解 题类:常考题 难易度:普通
北京市中央民族大学附属中学2018届高三上学期英语12月月考试卷
Hold your smartphone, smile at the front camera, and click! You get a selfie. There is no doubt that this photo is yours. But if a monkey takes a selfie, does the camera owner have the right to decide how to use it?
Recently, this question has caused a problem between Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, and British wildlife photographer David J. Slater.
In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a macaque(猕猴) got hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite naughty, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told The Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of monkey selfies. The best of images was a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens.
This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia refused Slater's request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, a website that is run by the organization and offers free images. 5
According to Wikimedia, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy and use any works here freely as long as they follow what the author says.” The question that arose here was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter(快门) button, could be considered the photographer of the monkey selfie. Wikimedia's position on this was clear: as the work of a non-human animal, this photo has no human author who owns the copyright.”
Only authors of creative works, like a piece of writing or a song, own copyrights. In terms of photos, US copyright law says whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you to take a photo of them, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Justin Bieber, a Canadian singer, made faces behind them. You, as the photographer, would have the photo's copyright and sell it. The tourists, who own the camera on which the photo was taken and asked you to take the photo don't get the right to use it without you allowing them to. All this has been complicated by the appearance of surveillance cameras(监控摄像头), smart phones, and large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button to produce works whose copyrights belong to their boss.
Slater seems to be thinking along these lines. He says that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and allowing the monkeys to “steal” his cameras makes him the author of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” Show. “I believe in this case, the monkey was my assistant.”
If that seems unfair, think about this. If a person left her laptop in a café, and a poet picked it up, opened up a word-processing program, and typed out a poem which turned out to be the best poem of this generation, could she ask for much more than her laptop back?
Dear Amy, My in-laws are all the products of failed marriages, so there are blood relatives and step relatives to deal with on both sides of the aisle. For years, my in-laws have told my children that my wife's stepmother's grandchildren are their cousins. This alone is not true, since these kids are only involved in our lives due to marriage. I just keep talking to my kids and explaining to them the way the family tree works and that these kids are not their cousins. At one point, my oldest son got mad and told one of these kids that he was not his real cousin, and then my in-laws confronted my son about what he said. They were apparently upset about it. Amy, I am not going to create a world that does not exist. They are stuck on taking in these kids that have zero actual blood relation to them at all. I stand my ground on this, and my wife just thinks that I am being an ass. Your thoughts? Disturbed Dad |
Disturbed Dad, Before you spend the rest of your life carefully studying a family tree at every potluck dinner, remember that “family” isn't some exclusive club that you get to join by having two or more of the same biological relatives. People in highly functioning and inclusive families will tell you that all you have to do to be a part of any family is to be considered part of the family. This means being included, regardless of your biological status, and reveling in relationships that are auntlike, grandparent-like or cousinlike. It is wise to explain truthfully all of these many and varied relationships to your children, but to use loaded terms like “real family” only underlines your emotional ignorance about relationships. Your in-laws are doing a wonderful thing accepting these children, so put down the genealogy chart and apologize. After all, if we follow your logic, then your in-laws shouldn't be accepting you as family either; you aren't related to them by blood, so you aren't their “real family.” The good news is, if you continue to treat your wife's family this way, you won't have to worry about keeping the blood relatives and the step-relatives in this family straight — given your lack of good manners, these family members might disregard you in favor of someone who is more open, accepting and inclusive. Amy |
试题篮