Except when the creation is done while working as an employee where the copyright then belongs to the employer rather than the employee as they paid the employee to create it for them.
could the way the OP is using it not fall under quoting/fair use? seems to me it may well do (i have no real idea though). or at least could be used in a way that would fall under that. i don’t know what quoting/fair use depends on. i think i’ve read it’s a bit of a grey area. that’s the way i’d argue it if it were me.
also, this work, was it for a third party?; one of your employer’s clients? if so it aint your ex-employer who holds the copyright then is it?
also are you just saying you did this work, or at your saying you did this work while at such and such company? should be the latter i reckon.
If you were using the same wording on your portfolio page as you do currently for sites you designed while employed by your old employer then I don’t blame them for coming down on you
XXX have completed the website design and website development of a new website for …
But there’s no way for us to know because I assume you have taken the other items down.
While I agree with you Stephen on the issue of copyright and ownership (as he was paid as an employee therefore the rights belong to the company itself rather than a specific individual), in this case I don’t believe it makes a difference whatsoever. The key point is that the work itself is not being reproduced, is a screenshot of the work is being used in it’s place as a visual representation. Taking a screenshot of something you produced (even for someone else) and using it on your website is NOT a violation of intellectual property law (past cases have deemed it under fair use), the only grounds for complaint the business may have (which is what I suspect has occurred) is that the way you may have worded the reference to the image to imply that you produced the work (which could be false attribution or claims over work you have no right to). If you were to restate your wording to signify that you produced the website whilst working for another business and as long as you’re not stating you own the work you should have no issue whatsoever (under such rights). The fact you made it within another business is irrelevant here, their proclamation that they produced the work (which they contradict with acknowledging you designed it) re-iterates that whilst the claim of copyright over the work lies with them, you should be entitled to detail the work you did for that company post your leaving that position (as long as a non-disclosure agreement was not in place).
I am not a lawyer however I’ll simply stat it as this: If there’s no contract, proper attribution given (saying you worked for them on each project), only use a screenshot and link (fair use) and aren’t bound by a NDA, they have no reason to object to you highlighting the work you’ve undertaken.
That might still depend on how big the image was and whether it includes anything covered by trademarks. Derivitive works such as an image of something covered by a copyright is still copyright to the owner of the original regardless of who created the derivitive work though so they’d still be entitled to argue the case and leave it to a court to decide whether or not it was fair use (even if it is pretty much guaranteed that a court would rule that it is).
I agree with you that it is more likely to be the associated wording that caused the problem in this particular case if it didn’t acknowledge that the company created the designs and that the OP’s involvement in their creation was as an employee of that company.
Trademarks only tend to cover issues which may lead to misrepresentation or mis-association with another brand, taking a screenshot of a brand (like Google - which is trademarked) for a purpose unrelated to the brand (such as for use within an article to showcase a point) does not invalidate the trademark at all (as whilst the mark is in the image, it’s not attempting to pass itself off as to what that mark covers or try to misrepresent itself as that mark owner). 
PS: Size of the image is irrelevant, it’s not a reproduction of the code - it’s therefore an independent work (like a photo of a sculpture). Though as a matter of course if you were to specifically screenshot a graphic on the website - rather than the site itself, it could be deemed a reproduction and in violation of copyright.
A full sized image of a web page could potentially be mistaken for the page itself and so could be actionable even though it doesn’t reproduce the code.
In any case there’s nothing to stop a site owner threatening to take action even where a court would decide it is fair use. If the threat gets the person to take down the image then they win. If it doesn’t then all it cost them was a small amount of time unless they actually decide to take it to court and lose.
Also I have heard of people who have taken photos of sculptures, paintings, etc being taken to court for publishing derivitive works and I have also heard that at least some of those have been won by the owner of the original work and the photographer was determined to not be the legal owner of the photo that they took…
I also have heard of people suing McDonalds because they burned themselves with hot coffee… All the means if we have stupid judges…
After reviewing his site, I would have to say, there is nothing wrong with his representation of his work…
This is of course my opinion
Thanks everyone for the advice. I changed the written content on the site to explicitly state that I done it under his employ. I had thought this was implicit as it says it on my CV, also downloadable on the site, but this is just to clear things up.
He forwarded the same email today, so I have decided to take legal advice.
That’s my understanding as well.
You need to be explicit on EVERY reference, not just those held within a single location. Any potential to be misrepresented could be cause for legal action.
So, no bites on the question, “why are we so adherent to the law in this case but not when it comes to music piracy?”. They seem quite similar to me - no proven material damages, only the potential damages. And, it’s a digital asset no really no production cost or physical theft.
And yet, suddenly people are on the side of the law and the copyright holder? Oh how convenient!
Because people who “pirate” music had NO intentions of buying the music anyways. No “real” loss to the music company. Same with games, movies…
I think the thing is, internet artwork is done by people with MUCH smaller pocket books. They need every purchase, and they get offended when someone takes it… don’t know really, just my opinion. I don’t care either way. I don’t buy music or movies anyways. lol
have i completely misread/misunderstood this thread’s question?; is it talking about reproducing some work (a website) which someone else has paid for, reproduced by the worker who did the work (while working in another company) in a portfolio “look this is the work i’ve done in the past” kind of situation?
surely that’s quoting, fair use? seems less like copying, breaking of copyright, than copying of music.
it’s like a product shot, where the product is the website. it’s not replicating the website itself, but a picture of a website.
but this for example
is making me think i may not have even understood the question.
also, again, if the website owner is a third party, not the ex-employer of the OP, then if the complaint isn’t originating from this third party then the whole thing’s moot because it ain’t any of the ex-employer’s business; they are not the owners of the copyright.
It is called “work for hire”. As per copyright laws, when the work is done as work for hire ( ie you work for an employer ) copyright belongs to the employer. You can’t use in your portfolio site without getting an approval from the employer.