You used this website template (http://html5up.net/hyperspace) which has a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and you scrubbed the author's name and attribution from the template. Please respect the license! http://html5up.net/license
The attribution text is right in the source code, first thing you'll see.
In some situations, it's difficult to place attribution along with the media, but in this case, it's not - it's a webpage - and having the attribution be in the source code is not really acceptable, because it's not reasonably accessible for someone looking for it.
If you look at that page and only that page, what leads you to believe that this is built of off a CC-BY work? Nothing. Sure, you can add "for copyright and license information, visit this link" in the footer, with a link to the github readme page that has the attribution, but removing it all together and only leaving scraps of it in the source code is just careless, reckless misuse of the original author's work.
"Need an attribution-free version?
Check out Pixelarity, my latest and greatest side project that offers attribution-free usage of all of my templates, exclusive new templates, and support (from me) for just $19."
https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENS...
He didn't obfuscate the source, and indeed the attribution is the very first thing you see in the source (and when it comes to HTML, the source IS the website). And while he didn't comply 100% with the 'default' CC license (which reads that you should state the changes made), he did comply 100% with the 'rules' given by the author. He gave credit, and linked to the website, as well as the specific licensing terms given by the author.
Tl;dr - since he's not selling a template, the copyright at the bottom obviously refers to his own product and not the web template. The attribution is in the correct spot, at the top of the source.
What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image.
What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page.
The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.
As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code.
I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'.
Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!
For example if I include a trademarked logo then does it mean that I have to open source it? Does it affect the content of the page?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode -- section 4(b)
All said, though, it's sketchy practice no matter what the license says literally. A main purpose of CC is to give you a license that can be followed common-sensibly. Playing "lawyer' with the wording isn't reciprocating the goodwill of the author.