QuasarNova 
Okay sorry it took long just needed to do some research and ny that I mean I didn’t found much so this is what I got
First case: AlphaDream went out of business recently, but sense the “Mario & Luigi” games are partly made by Nintendo, and features their characters, Nintendo owns the M&L series, and do with ‘em however they want.
This is exactly as it is
Second case:Though, they need Square/Enix’s permission for the Geno cameo, which is why it was removed from the 3DS remake sadly.
This is a lot murkier because there’s really nothing stopping Nintendo to just ask permission and use the character so something else must’ve happened in regards to it’s use
Now finally: The case is different with games like Nintendo’s old Popeye arcade/NES game, which is apparently mostly owned by King Features Syndicate, (owners of Popeye) but I hear oddly in some countries Bandai/Namco has license over it.
This is where the whole debacle of what belongs to whom begins:
For starters, the source code of what will become the videogame belongs to Nintendo, to make it more specific, we’re talking about the likes of raw models and many other assets that will be used as foundation.
But you can’t sell a videogame with just 3D unpolished looking mannequins unless your name is Super Hot, so the models are then turned into Popeye and Brutus. Now funny thing, the character of Popeye himself is free from copyright since his original creator Elzie Segar, died at 43 in 1938 and EU law protects the rights of authors for 70 years after their death which ended in 2009 if my math is right, which more than likely isn’t. Meaning that anyone can print and sell Popeye posters, T-shirts and even create new comic strips, without the need for authorisation or to make royalty payments.
However, while the copyright indeed ended inside the EU, the character is protected in the US until 2024. US law protects a work for 95 years after its initial copyright. So, the Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar’s authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation.
And finally the reason Namco/Bandai hold some legal action for those games is because of what I mentioned; back when games weren’t widely distributed on sites like steam you needed someone to help you reproduce the cartridge and sell it, hence the need of distribution rights, meaning that on paper only Namco is legally allowed to sell copies of those games on the geographic areas they’re contractually allowed to operate within.
Short version, a videogame of Popeye in the EU is free real estate. The game that was made back in the 80’s is not because the source code belongs to Nintendo and, depending on the region you should only be able to acquire a copy via Namco Bandai provided they still hold the rights and if it’s on the US, you also infringe copyright due to the copyright active until 2024.
There’s also the whole trademark issue but that’s another topic
@QuasarNova
Which is?
Okay sorry it took long just needed to do some research and ny that I mean I didn’t found much so this is what I got
First case: AlphaDream went out of business recently, but sense the “Mario & Luigi” games are partly made by Nintendo, and features their characters, Nintendo owns the M&L series, and do with ‘em however they want.
This is exactly as it is
Second case:Though, they need Square/Enix’s permission for the Geno cameo, which is why it was removed from the 3DS remake sadly.
This is a lot murkier because there’s really nothing stopping Nintendo to just ask permission and use the character so something else must’ve happened in regards to it’s use
Now finally: The case is different with games like Nintendo’s old Popeye arcade/NES game, which is apparently mostly owned by King Features Syndicate, (owners of Popeye) but I hear oddly in some countries Bandai/Namco has license over it.
This is where the whole debacle of what belongs to whom begins:
For starters, the source code of what will become the videogame belongs to Nintendo, to make it more specific, we’re talking about the likes of raw models and many other assets that will be used as foundation.
But you can’t sell a videogame with just 3D unpolished looking mannequins unless your name is Super Hot, so the models are then turned into Popeye and Brutus. Now funny thing, the character of Popeye himself is free from copyright since his original creator Elzie Segar, died at 43 in 1938 and EU law protects the rights of authors for 70 years after their death which ended in 2009 if my math is right, which more than likely isn’t. Meaning that anyone can print and sell Popeye posters, T-shirts and even create new comic strips, without the need for authorisation or to make royalty payments.
However, while the copyright indeed ended inside the EU, the character is protected in the US until 2024. US law protects a work for 95 years after its initial copyright. So, the Popeye trademark, a separate entity to Segar’s authorial copyright, is owned by King Features, a subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation.
And finally the reason Namco/Bandai hold some legal action for those games is because of what I mentioned; back when games weren’t widely distributed on sites like steam you needed someone to help you reproduce the cartridge and sell it, hence the need of distribution rights, meaning that on paper only Namco is legally allowed to sell copies of those games on the geographic areas they’re contractually allowed to operate within.
Short version, a videogame of Popeye in the EU is free real estate. The game that was made back in the 80’s is not because the source code belongs to Nintendo and, depending on the region you should only be able to acquire a copy via Namco Bandai provided they still hold the rights and if it’s on the US, you also infringe copyright due to the copyright active until 2024.
There’s also the whole trademark issue but that’s another topic
