Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.
It's a straw man argument because the topic for debate was who has ownership of the work, not right of sale.
Nevertheless:
Here is an essay, full of citations of actual court cases supporting the content detailing how derivative work rights have changed over the last 185 years. (the decades of legal history you asked for)
http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=facscholAnd to make it easier to digest, here is an actual law firm's explanation of how derivative work rights are active today:
http://www.wagenmakerlaw.com/blog/nonprofit%E2%80%99s-guide-copyright-law-derivative-worksSpecifically the section called "The Right to Create Derivative Works"
-Copyright law vests the original work’s copyright owner with the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Therefore, the owner in the preexisting work must authorize the creation of a derivative work in order for it to be separately owned by another. If not authorized, the preparation of a derivative work constitutes copyright infringement of the preexisting work and is not copyrightable. But if authorized, and an absent an agreement otherwise, the owner of the preexisting work will not have any copyright ownership in the derivative work.-
Should this hack even constitute being a derivative work, which is does not - as it does not create any new story, it was never authorized and the author would have no copyright claim. They don't have any right to dictate reproduction, distribution, etc... Rather, the Copyright Act of 1976 outlines that the owner of the original copyright retains all ownership and rights automatically. (
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106)
I will reiterate that I, personally, fully support ROM hacking and use hacks regularly. There is just a lot of misinformation being thrown around about ownership and what they can and can't do. Nintendo, like many copyright owners, will often not pursue fan made projects because it does not generate any new income for them and often creates stronger fanbases for original productions. However that does not mean they cannot or will not. But drawing unnecessary attention to unauthorized works can only have a negative impact on the ability to keep them available as it increases the likelihood that Nintendo will be aware of them - hence what I said on the NintendoAge forum.