TuringTux

That might not be necessary.

Copyright law varies internationally, which is especially tricky given we have the internet which can transfer copyrighted material between jurisdictions in the blink of an eye, but this is how one jurisdiction might approach it:

In Germany, there has been a long standing legal dispute between the band Kraftwerk and the musician Moses Pelham about him sampling 2 seconds from Kraftwerk's track "Metall auf Metall" (if you search for this term, you will get a lot of results about the dispute) without permission. This disputed has steadily escalated until it reached European Court of Justice who delivered a judgement establishing a principle that Moses Pelham's use of the sample was legal, and covered by the copyright exemption for "pastiches" (a term that has been mentioned several times in this discussion already).

Wikipedia article (German): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstreit_zwischen_Moses_Pe...

Press release by the Court of Justice (PDF): https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...

The actual judgement: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/jurisprudence?sort=DO...

A rather long expert opinion from before the judgement (PDF): https://freiheitsrechte.org/uploads/documents/Englische-Doku...

So, this work here might be a pastiche, meaning a European court might find that there is no compensation due. Or not, who knows, I am not a court and not even a lawyer.

According to the author, the illustrations are human-made:

https://acesounderglass.com/2026/09/25/frog-and-toad-and-the...

The author discloses the story started as a prompt to Claude, but has been rewritten. She shares the conversation:

https://claude.ai/share/52385381-9df2-4b39-a127-f583d862dc0c

I think the actual published prose is considerably different from the initial result of Claude.

I think the article raises interesting questions about trust, but I am also doubtful if the definition of the “incoherent cryptosystem” is useful:

The article argues that Signal is an incoherent cryptosystem, because they ship the E2E-encrypting Signal client (and could, hence, backdoor it) that should protect me, the user, against their own infrastructure snooping on me.

As I understand the definition, we would not have an incoherent cryptosystem if I used a third-party client on Signal's infrastructure. Said Non-Signal client would implement E2E encryption, and use the Signal infrastructure, so the entity running the infrastructure is different from the entity providing the client. But is this any better?

Couldn't “Non-Signal Corp.” be coerced by the government (or decide to build a backdoor for their own gain) just as easily as “Signal”?

So I don't think it matters if the entity distributing the client is the same as the one running the infrastructure. It matters if I trust the client. How to implement this (audits, OSS, version pinning, ...) is still an open question to me.

Thanks, that (i.e., the linked blog post https://maxread.substack.com/p/a-literary-history-of-fake-te...) is exactly it.

The accompanying announcement can be found at https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publicat...