Not a lawyer so I asked ChatGBT the following basic scenario...

Is this a copyright violation in the United States?... Website "A" downloads images (some rare) and and historical data from Website "B" without permission or attribution. Website "B" has the wording "© Copyright 2009-2026. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page.

The Response

On the facts you've described, there is a stronger indication of potential copyright infringement regarding the images than the historical data, but it is impossible to say definitively without more details.

Here's the legal breakdown under U.S. law:

Images

If Website A:

downloads image files from Website B,
copies them to its own server or otherwise reproduces them,
displays them on its own website,
does so without permission or a license,

then that conduct is often copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act.

The owner of a copyrighted image has the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display it. Unauthorized copying typically implicates those exclusive rights.

The lack of attribution does not itself create copyright infringement—copyright infringement can occur even if Website A gives full credit. Conversely, giving attribution does not excuse infringement if no permission or legal exception applies.

Historical data

Historical facts themselves are generally not protected by copyright.

Examples include:

dates,
names,
locations,
serial numbers,
historical events,
factual specifications.

However, Website B's original expression may be protected, including:

written descriptions,
captions,
commentary,
research notes,
original compilations,
creative arrangement of information,
charts, maps, and graphics.

So:

Copying the same historical facts is generally permissible.
Copying Website B's original wording or creative presentation may infringe.

Copyright notice

The statement:

© Copyright 2009–2026. All rights reserved.

does not create the copyright.

Instead, it:

identifies the claimed copyright owner,
provides notice of the owner's claim,
may undermine an argument that the copier acted innocently.

Copyright protection exists automatically once an original work is fixed in a tangible medium.

Rare images

The fact that some images are "rare" does not automatically change the copyright analysis.

For example:

A modern photograph of a rare object is generally protected.
A carefully restored digital image may contain protectable creative expression.
On the other hand, if an image is a faithful reproduction of a public-domain work, the copyright status can be more nuanced and may depend on whether the reproduction contains sufficient originality.

Other legal issues

If Website A is systematically downloading Website B's content, there may also be issues beyond copyright, such as:

breach of Website B's Terms of Service,
breach of contract,
or, in some circumstances, claims related to unfair competition or unauthorized access.

Those issues are separate from copyright and depend on additional facts.

Overall assessment

Based solely on your description:

If Website A is downloading and republishing Website B's copyrighted images without permission, there is a substantial likelihood that this is copyright infringement.
If Website A is copying only historical facts, that alone is generally not copyright infringement.
If Website A is also copying Website B's text, captions, research, organization, or graphics, the likelihood of infringement increases.
The absence of attribution is not what makes the conduct infringing; the unauthorized copying of protected expression is.

If this is a real dispute, the specific facts that would matter most are whether the images are original copyrighted works or public-domain reproductions, whether Website A is making actual copies or merely linking to the originals, and whether any license, fair use, or other defense applies. Those details can significantly affect the legal analysis.

Looks like someone will be talking to his "team of lawyers" once again... I added that line.