I think so.
The whole thing is currently being discussed on a mailing list that we are both on (this is how we know each other, and how I found out about it) and I get the feeling he has emailed the guy.
I don’t want to hijack Opal’s thread, but if you wouldn’t mind a related question then cj finn…
Copyright on images I get, ditto copyright on the “overall look & feel”, but to repeat my question to catsix above, is there some test / limit on the html copyright?
For example, there are literally millions of web pages using a left sidebar menu with javascript to swap the images in and out, and while the images may be copyrighted, the underlying markup code needs to be pretty similar – I guess I just don’t understand how copyright works in this case.
Presumably there’s some minimum requirement for images too – if you and I both use photoshop to create a blue button, using web-safe colours and default settings there’s a good chance we’ll end up with the same thing.
Not – as I said – that this has anything to do with the buttons.dk site … that’s just blatant copyright infringement. (To add insult to injury the copied site has a copyright notice in the footer).
Feel free to hijack 
I’m not really that hopeful that there is anything he can do.
Thanks ** Apollyon**, it’s been awhile.
To further the hijack, something like this (well, not exactly like this) is going on at a big game website. Their message boards have a vast collection of avatars offered to users. Unfortunately, these avatars are directly swiped from original artworks they found on the Internet. I found out about this from an art board I frequent. Some rather esteemed artists and illustrators have had their artwork ripped off and made into avatars. (No credit given to the artist, no nothing.)
When some artists confronted the game site’s message board about it, the general attitude (amongst many, anyway) has been, “What’s the big deal? Stop being so oversensitive. You should be flattered that we’re using your work.” (Of course the fact that it’s highly illegal, and that they give no credit to the artists who they are stealing–that doesn’t seem to phase them.) They seem to think that what they are doing is fine and dandy. They also feel that the artists they are ripping off (not me–not as far as I know) shouldn’t mind. Give me a break. Some people’s sense of entitlement is astonishment.
He doesn’t have to litigate. He just has to threaten to litigate. That works wonders, and if the message is worded in a formal, yet polite, fashion you’d be surprised how cooperative people can be.
A lot of beginner website creators know that they are allowed to look at and learn from source code, but they often assume that means they’re allowed to steal it outright, and politely pointing out the error of their assumptions is often all that needs be done.
However, if they refuse, or get abusive, pile on the sucker.
You may not be aware of this, but there has been a court decision on thumbnails in a specific context which could lay the groundwork for a future decision that they are in fact “Fair Use” and in any event not “highly illegal” as you allege.
From: http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/baroni-2002-03-all.html
Some other key quotes.
Based on the current direction of the courts in other areas regarding online images (see also my personal favourite, BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y., 1999) ) I don’t see it as being too unlikely for a ruling that thumbnails used not-for-profit will be considered Fair Use.
If you have a link to any successful prosecution of a not-for-profit thumbnail user, I’d like to see it posted here.
Una, I don’t think it quite qualifies as “fair use.” No artists are being credited for the thumbnail art (and it is my understanding that fair use usually should credit the artist). From this site:
The thumbnails are not used for “indexing” purposes, at least not my understanding of indexing–they are available as an attraction for users of the message board, who want to use exotic avatar images for the board. This game company’s website, rather than hiring their own artists to make avatars for their own website (and this company surely has many artists who could do so) they have swiped art off of the web. This message board has heavy advertising on it (not that this means that they are directly profiting from the stolen art). But the game company is definitely a for profit company, and this is clearly identified as their message board.
You are correct, and I understand what you are saying. But what I was saying is that I think that the first steps have been taken towards a ruling on them being considered “Fair Use” even without attribution. That was why I was mentioning it was decision in a specific context.
Now, the question of whether a message board with advertising on it is gaining revenue from the thumbnails, or if there can be a tie to a revenue generating mechanism over the thumbnails, is an interesting argument that I’ve got into with people over the use of copyrighted non-thumbnail (full-sized) images. It seems in your sepcific instance that the site in question is very much on the side of “violation” versus others.
I was actually putting forth the cite and other info as and FYI, not to rebut your arguments. I apologize if this post or the previous one seemed disjointed or off topic, as I’m really quite ill.
Have you ever considered just talking to his upstream provider and asking them to cut him off?
How did he find the site? Did he just stumble across it while web-surfing randomly? Just curious.
Just ask Microsoft if code is copyrightable!
All computer code is copyrightable. Its a language after all. Anything that is put down in a tangible format in any language is copyrightable.
The copyright pertains to one’s code only to the extent that it is original to the author, meaning not copied. That’s it. All computer code is copyrightable. The Copyright Office has some wonderful circulars on the topic.
cj
Did someone go talk to the thief’s host?
I just tried to look at the copied page and got the following:
Looks like the page got snuffed.
To much traffic due to intrest from this thread perhaps?
Uh… yes? That was the first thing he did. And apparently they finally responded as the site is now down 
Excellent, thank you.
A quick google turned up the US Copyright Office’s circular on computer programs, and pretty much answered my question in this section:
So, the layout of a webpage is not protected by copyright (no worries then with the squillions of left sidebar menus), and since the logic and methods are exempt that pretty much excludes all of the markup code, javascript, CSS etc. This leaves the images and the expressive phrases used in a page – excluding:
(Presumably this excludes my other example of a basic blue photoshop button, or the use of the word “Home”).
So… if I have constructed a web page and someone copies it, but replaces all of the text / blurby bits and all of the non-incidental images (my cool title image is protected, my basic blue “Home” button probably isn’t) then while it may be rather antisocial on the part of the copier, it is most likely not a technical copyright violation.
This isn’t relevant in the case of the now defunct copied page, since the “assmunch” had a) stolen all of the images, and then b) left a chunk of the text intact.
The site is down?
Sweet.
Una, I’m so sorry to hear that you’re feeling ill! Take it easy.
OK, I get what you’re saying now, and thanks for the link. That’s pretty interesting. Actually, I don’t mind a little bit of “fair use” on the Internet in the way described (using thumbails for “indexing or informational” purposes). I think it’s more than all right, in fact.
Oh yes, it certainly is. The battle rages on, with at least one person involved in the message board saying that he’s “looking into” taking the avatars down and trying to make things right. However, others have been downright obnoxious about the whole thing. And the real kicker is–the avatar site has a “rule” that says that anyone who uses “their” avatars (meaning, the stolen art) should link back to the message board that is showing the (stolen) avatars! Oh yeah, they want credit for “their” avatars–but they don’t understand what the big deal is when artists want the same thing. Amazing.
Oh, and in regards to the OP: It is so great that the offending site is down! Yipee! Cool.
I love it when the simple plans work. That’s how you deal with idiots like that.