I hope this is a GQ thread - mods feel free to move if it isn’t.
Anyhow, an, er, “acquaintance” of ours has created a website with the specific intention of harassing my wife. The domain name he registered is somewhat like her own domain name, and he has helped himself to a couple of images from her real site. I understand that this is a breach of copyright, since I took the pictures and I sure as hell didn’t give him permission to use them.
Well, that isn’t the real issue, though - I just want him to stop :mad:
Copyright issues are one thing but you might have to spend money to fight it yourself.
Building a website to talk about or roast somebody isn’t any legal foul. They say the ultimate defense against libel is truthful statements. Even parody is generally legally protected.
The best chance you have is by proving falsehoods on the site or copyright violations. These cases are very hard to win in the U.S. Although I don’t know if your wife is a celebrity, this type of thing happens to celebrities all the time and there isn’t usually much you can do unless you want to cough out dollars to an attorney to figure out if there is something that can be done. Having a website with a similar name as another person isn’t a crime although I can see how you would be upset about all of this from a personal perspective.
Contact the web host of your “acquaintance” and explain the problem. Better still, get a lawyer to do it. Since your wife is not a “public figure,” it my my understanding that the standard to prove defamation is much lower.
You can also change the code to prevent anyone from stealing or hot-linking your images. In fact, if you went that route and he’s still posting your copyrighted images, you might pursue him under DMCA.
If he actually downloaded a copy of the pictures, and stored them on his server, that is indeed a copyright violation. (Assuming you had appropriate markings on your website saying Copyrighted, etc.)
But if he just has a link on his website going to the pictures on your web server (‘hot-linking’), the copyright status is much more unclear. He can argue that he has not copied anything, but is directing people to your website, where you posted the pictures for anyone to see. He could even argue that he is doing you a favor, by helping more people see your pictures – web search enhancement firms charge a hefty price for this. I don’t think there is a court consensus on this issue yet.
I’m guessing that isn’t the case, but if it is, this would be the oppurtunity to change the pictures (keeping the link the same) to something else of your choice.
No. Not since 1989, in this country anyway. All works are born under copyright the moment they are fixed in a tangible form (yes, digital files count) and the copyright is owned by the creator unless a prexisting contract turns it over to someone else. The only exception is works of the Federal Government, which are born in the public domain but may be classified for national security reasons.
But then you can have some fun. You can replace the images with … well, anything. Anything whatsoever. If that doesn’t send shivers down your spine, you haven’t been online long enough. (Look up the “.htaccess file” online.)
You may wish to review:
“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” — Annoying someone online becomes federal crime - Wikinews, the free news source
You can replace the images with … well, anything. Anything whatsoever. If that doesn’t send shivers down your spine, you haven’t been online long enough. 
(Look up the “.htaccess file” online.)