I have only ever heard a *copyright* claimed by Kirk.  That only applies
to a *particular* instantiation (image).  Please do not throw legal confusion
into the matter by pretending that we need to kow tow to Kirk when we
make a completely unrelated (but similar looking) daemon figure.  He owns
the image, not the likeness.

Also, I thought that he specifically disavowed the "beastie" name, saying
that the guy whose image he holds under copyright never had a name.


These are just two correctional factoids for the thread.

-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/