Of course there are costs associated with forensivs. But if the defense makes a strong enough case that the plaintiff brought the case in bad faith, the plaintiff will likely have to eat the defense's legal fees and associated costs. Of course, I'm sure plaintiffs in these cases wager on things not going that far, expecting that they will get a settlement from their victims, most of whom will just want to make the nightmare go away as easily as possible.
It would be beyond the duties of a notary to declare that a printout appeared to be an accurate representation of a website. All they can do is attest that you presented said material on a certain date and affirmed that the material was genuine. The date is what's important, because the evidence that it is a genuine representation of that website on that date is a matter to be demonstrated by other means, such as borrowing the reputation of a library by using their printers instead of your own.
Ultimately, though, what we really need is a safer and more effective means of licensing free material than is currently provided by the Creative Commons. I'm glad that discussions like this one are bringing attention to the problems which need to be solved.
Diligence with printing regularly is irrelevant. By printing at a public terminal, one is relying on the neutrality of the establishment where the printing is done, not one's own history or reputation. And saving blank paper to stick in a printer later would accomplish absolutely nothing, as the coding is placed there by the printer itself, it's not present on the paper before that point. (Although, at the fiber level, different brands and lots of paper may be distinguished, but that's less helpful.)
I never said mailing would stand on its own. As you said yourself, every bit of supporting evidence helps. Even if not sufficient proof by itself, together with the printing it would cast doubt on the plaintiff's assertions.
Better than mailing, or even in addition to it for extra safety, would be notarization. Some banks offer notary services for free to account holders. While a notary can't certify that the contents of the printout are true, they can certify the date it was shown to them. If such a service isn't available free or at least very inexpensive, one might as well buy images from a reputable stock dealer instead, unless no suitable substitute exists or one is choosing a Commons image as a matter of principle.
Of course, how do you prove that the work was ever CC? Print out the web-page proving it? It can be faked.
There's a low-cost means to help establish proof.
Print the web page from a public internet-connected computer at a library or internet café. Browsers on such systems are typically set up to automatically print the site URL and the time and date of printing on each page.
Take the printout, put it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself.
After you receive the envelope, file it away someplace safe and never open it.
If you get sued, submit the unopened, postmarked envelope as evidence of the CC license being in effect when you found the image. If the litigant claims you could have faked the printout, point out that modern printers embed unique codes in every page printed identifying the specific printer which was used. If necessary, have the printer owner provide a sample page from the same printer and show that the codes are a match.
Of course, if the printer is no longer in the owner's possession, things get thornier, but even then you may be able to locate other papers somewhere at the location (flyers, signs, etc) which were produced on the same printer at some point, or find a friendly frequent patron of the same place who prints regularly and can submit a matching print sample from their personal archives.
It's not foolproof, but considering the total investment is less than a dollar and could save you thousands of dollars in the future, I'd say it's worth doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are costs associated with forensivs. But if the defense makes a strong enough case that the plaintiff brought the case in bad faith, the plaintiff will likely have to eat the defense's legal fees and associated costs. Of course, I'm sure plaintiffs in these cases wager on things not going that far, expecting that they will get a settlement from their victims, most of whom will just want to make the nightmare go away as easily as possible. It would be beyond the duties of a notary to declare that a printout appeared to be an accurate representation of a website. All they can do is attest that you presented said material on a certain date and affirmed that the material was genuine. The date is what's important, because the evidence that it is a genuine representation of that website on that date is a matter to be demonstrated by other means, such as borrowing the reputation of a library by using their printers instead of your own. Ultimately, though, what we really need is a safer and more effective means of licensing free material than is currently provided by the Creative Commons. I'm glad that discussions like this one are bringing attention to the problems which need to be solved.
Diligence with printing regularly is irrelevant. By printing at a public terminal, one is relying on the neutrality of the establishment where the printing is done, not one's own history or reputation. And saving blank paper to stick in a printer later would accomplish absolutely nothing, as the coding is placed there by the printer itself, it's not present on the paper before that point. (Although, at the fiber level, different brands and lots of paper may be distinguished, but that's less helpful.) I never said mailing would stand on its own. As you said yourself, every bit of supporting evidence helps. Even if not sufficient proof by itself, together with the printing it would cast doubt on the plaintiff's assertions. Better than mailing, or even in addition to it for extra safety, would be notarization. Some banks offer notary services for free to account holders. While a notary can't certify that the contents of the printout are true, they can certify the date it was shown to them. If such a service isn't available free or at least very inexpensive, one might as well buy images from a reputable stock dealer instead, unless no suitable substitute exists or one is choosing a Commons image as a matter of principle.