2017考研英語(yǔ)拓展閱讀：猴子不擁有自拍照版權(quán)

• 2025考研復(fù)試標(biāo)準(zhǔn)班
• 26考研全科上岸規(guī)劃營(yíng)「擇校▪規(guī)劃▪備考」
• 2026考研專業(yè)課復(fù)習(xí)資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫(kù)」

An Indonesian monkey that achieved Internetcelebrity with a grinning selfie cannot own thephotograph’s copyright, a federal judge said thisweek.

本周(1月3日至9日)，美國(guó)一位聯(lián)邦法官稱，因大笑自拍在網(wǎng)上走紅的一只印尼猴子不擁有照片的版權(quán)。

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had argued in United States District Court in SanFrancisco that the rights to the photograph, which was snapped using a photographer’sunattended camera, rightfully belonged to the monkey, a crested macaque.

善待動(dòng)物組織(Ethical Treatment of Animals)在舊金山的美國(guó)地方法院為這只黑冠獼猴爭(zhēng)取照片所有權(quán)。照片是這只猴子用攝影師故意放在那里的相機(jī)自拍的。

In a tentative opinion on Wednesday, Judge William H. Orrick disagreed.

周三(1月6日)，威廉·H·奧里克法官(William H. Orrick)在一份初步意見(jiàn)書上對(duì)他們的主張表示反對(duì)。

“While Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well ashumans,” he wrote, “there is no indication that they did so in the copyright act.”

他寫道：“雖然國(guó)會(huì)和總統(tǒng)可以把法律保護(hù)的范圍擴(kuò)展到不同人群甚至動(dòng)物身上，但是在版權(quán)方面他們沒(méi)有這樣做過(guò)。”

The images were taken during a trip by the British photographer, David Slater, to theTangkoko Reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi in 2011. He put his camera on a tripodamid a troop of macaques, setting it so it would automatically focus and wind, and waited forthe animals to get curious.

那些照片是英國(guó)攝影師大衛(wèi)·斯萊特(David Slater)2011年在印度尼西亞蘇拉威島的Tangkoko保護(hù)區(qū)(Tangkoko Reserve)拍攝的。他把相機(jī)放在三腳架上，設(shè)為自動(dòng)對(duì)焦，置于一群獼猴中間，等待它們產(chǎn)生好奇心。

The results included the charming mug of the monkey, identified by PETA as a 6-year-oldmale, Naruto, grinning broadly and bucktoothed into the lens.

拍出的照片包括這只猴子迷人的笑臉。善待動(dòng)物組織認(rèn)出他是一只6歲大的公猴，綽號(hào)火影忍者(Naruto)。他對(duì)著鏡頭大笑，露出門牙。

Mr. Slater published a book, “Wildlife Personalities,” that included the pictures, and the imageswere widely shared online, including without permission by Wikipedia. When Mr. Slater askedthe crowd-sourced website to remove the image, it refused under much the same rationale asPETA: Mr. Slater didn’t press the shutter release, so the image was not his.

斯萊特出了一本名為《野生動(dòng)物的個(gè)性》(Wildlife Personalities)的書，收錄了這些照片。這些照片在網(wǎng)上廣為流傳，維基百科(Wikipedia)也未經(jīng)授權(quán)用了照片。斯萊特要求這家由眾人編輯的網(wǎng)站撤掉這張照片，該網(wǎng)站以與善待動(dòng)物組織相似的理由拒絕了他：照片不是斯萊特拍的，所以不歸他所有。

In September, PETA filed its lawsuit against Mr. Slater, his company, and Blurb, the companythat published his book, asking the judge to allow it to represent Naruto and distribute theimage’s proceeds for the benefit of the Indonesian reserve’s crested macaques, a criticallyendangered species.

去年9月，善待動(dòng)物組織起訴斯萊特以及他的公司及其出版商Blurb，要求法官允許該組織代表火影忍者將照片的收益用于保護(hù)印度尼西亞保護(hù)區(qū)的嚴(yán)重瀕危物種黑冠獼猴。

The photographer’s lawyers asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that amonkey lacks legal standing. Its motion, at times, struck a mocking tone.

這位攝影師的律師們請(qǐng)求法官撤回起訴，理由是猴子沒(méi)有法律地位。這份動(dòng)議書不時(shí)帶有揶揄口吻。

“A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue forinfringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punch line isreally happening.”

“一只猴子、一個(gè)動(dòng)物權(quán)利保護(hù)組織和一位靈長(zhǎng)類動(dòng)物學(xué)家走進(jìn)聯(lián)邦法院，起訴這只猴子所謂的版權(quán)遭到侵犯。這聽(tīng)起來(lái)像是一則笑話的開(kāi)頭，沒(méi)想到還真發(fā)生了。”

Judge Orrick explained from the bench on Wednesday that he had no authority to extendsuch rights to animals.

周三(1月6日)，奧里克法官在法庭上解釋說(shuō)，他無(wú)權(quán)將這樣的權(quán)利賦予動(dòng)物。

“This is an issue for Congress and the president,” he said, according to Ars Technica. “If theythink animals should have the right of copyright, they’re free, I think, under the Constitution,to do that.”

據(jù)Ars Technica網(wǎng)站稱，奧里克法官說(shuō)：“這是國(guó)會(huì)和總統(tǒng)的事。如果他們認(rèn)為動(dòng)物應(yīng)該擁有版權(quán)，那么我覺(jué)得按照憲法，他們有權(quán)這樣做。”

Last July, another legal effort to reinterpret the rights of other primates failed to persuade ajudge. The Nonhuman Rights Project argued in a State Supreme Court in Manhattan that twoapes being held by a university for research were “legal persons,” highly intelligent and self-aware, and should be removed to a sanctuary. The judge took the case seriously, butultimately decided that under the law, Hercules and Leo were property, not people.

去年7月，另一次重新闡釋其他靈長(zhǎng)類動(dòng)物權(quán)利的法律行動(dòng)也沒(méi)有贏得法官的支持。非人類權(quán)利計(jì)劃(Nonhuman Rights Project)在曼哈頓的州最高法院要求釋放一所大學(xué)拘禁的兩只用作研究的類人猿，稱它們是“法人”，具有很高的智商和自我意識(shí)，應(yīng)該被送往保護(hù)區(qū)。那位法官認(rèn)真對(duì)待這一案件，但是最終判定，依照法律，赫爾克里士(Hercules)和利奧(Leo)是財(cái)產(chǎn)，不是人。

Despite PETA’s setback this week, the group cast its unorthodox legal battle as a crucialstep toward enlarging the rights of animals.

盡管本周善待動(dòng)物組織遇到了挫折，但是該組織認(rèn)為自己的非正統(tǒng)法律訴訟是擴(kuò)大動(dòng)物權(quán)利的重要一步。

“We will continue to fight for Naruto and his fellow macaques,” Jeff Kerr, an attorney for PETA,said in a statement, adding “As my legal mentor used to say, ‘In social-cause cases,historically, you lose, you lose, you lose, and then you win.’”

善待動(dòng)物組織的律師杰夫·克爾(Jeff Kerr)在聲明中說(shuō)：“我們將繼續(xù)為火影忍者和他的同伴爭(zhēng)取權(quán)利。”他還說(shuō)，“就像我的法律導(dǎo)師過(guò)去常說(shuō)的，‘從歷史角度看，社會(huì)事業(yè)方面的案子，總是敗訴、敗訴、敗訴，堅(jiān)持到最后就是勝利。’”