Basically, when I attempt to read about copyright, I have to take a minute to psych myself up first.

I read a jargony paragraph. I blink a few times. I read it again. Maybe one more time. I find another article about the law and quietly squint at that for a while. Then I slowly shut my computer and go on with my life, none the wiser. If I have misunderstood something about ownership and copyright, you must forgive me.

I don’t own anything. All articles were found on online newspaper archives or were given to me. I believe the articles I chose are in the public domain or fall under fair usage(?). If I’m wrong let me know and I’ll take it down.

All photos were found…all over the place. Mostly by way of my light Pinterest addiction. I tried to make sure they either weren’t under copyright or fell under fair usage, but that’s surprisingly hard to do. If you’re like – Hey! That’s my photo! I own the rights to that photo! Again, let me know and I will rush to take it down like a jackrabbit late for dinner.

As for the truth of the articles themselves – that’s, of course, up for debate. Newspapers were not infallible or even accurate. They didn’t really try to be. Some of the time they would joyfully cut up facts, spice them and then served out a dish of half or more fantasy. Mostly though, they got their information secondhand, third-hand, forth-hand etc. etc. as communication methods were limited. Errors and liberties are to be expected and argued over and I welcome your thoughts.

My own words and opinions are also highly suspect, and I invite you to question them. I’m an affectionate fan and want Buster to get the best representation, even on the tiniest blog of all time, so if you find my posts and are shaking your head saying wow, she is so, so wrong, let me know.