> This website was made in Jan 2013 by Philippe Dubost for the sole purpose of a playful and creative job search. No copyright infrigement intended.
"No copyright infringement intended" is not a thing. Also, right below that it then says:
> © 2013, Philippe Dubost
Seems a bit strange to me.
2. If Amazon were to sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, the judge likely would toss out the case under the Supreme Court's Twombly/Iqbal doctrine [3], assuming Dubost filed a motion to dismiss --- I can't imagine how Amazon could plead a plausible case that the infringement had affected its market, as would be required by Twombly/Iqbal.
3. In the unlikely event that Amazon did sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, if Dubost won, he might very well be able to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from Amazon [4].
4. The resume suggests that Philippe Dubost is in Paris, so Amazon could sue in France for infringement of the French copyright; I don't know what the outcome would be in that case.
5. If someone at Amazon did want to file suit for infringement, the marketing people should throw their bodies in front of the train, because Amazon would be widely mocked. If anything, the resume's mimicry of the Amazon style provides (incremental) validation of Amazon's status as a First World icon.
5A. [EDIT:] On the trademark side, Amazon might have a plausible case against Dubost for "dilution" of a famous trademark, namely the totality of the Amazon Web site's look and feel. [5]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal#Rule_8_pleadi...
Addressing U.S. law only, and continuing the paragraph numbering of my comment above:
6. Dubost's fair use of Amazon's copyrighted work should not affect Amazon's copyright, even if Amazon didn't sue for infringement.
7. Dubost would have a copyright of his own, but only as to the "original" material that he contributed in his "fork" of Amazon's page; he would have no claim to copyright in Amazon's underlying work.
Amazon's monetary losses over this offense must be immeasurable. Jail time or crippling life-time debt could be the only satisfactory retribution.
/s
If you hire someone who has no idea how copyright works, and in the course of their employment with you they go ahead and infringe someone's IP, you're liable.
The caveat at the bottom should not use the hokey "not intended" phrase. It should say that the site is meant as parody and is not at all a representation of Amazon nor endorsed by Amazon.
Yes, that seems pedantic, but the law is pedantic.
Otherwise, very well done and I hope the OP gets a good job as a result.
EDIT: Oh, I see what you're saying. Call it satire and it's ‘fair use’
It isn't a legal thing. I look at it as a social signal: "I am not trying to be a dick here."
Remember that the copyright holder has to actually take action. When I find my copyrighted stuff borrowed, my reaction depends a lot on who's doing it and why. If somebody basically says, "Hey, I don't totally get this copyright thing, but I'm trying to do it right," that would make me more willing to contact them and work things out amicably.