Please everyone, don't make assumptions or speculations. It will only created unfounded concerns. CG has been on a decline for years now and it's closure was a matter of when not if.
That's incredibly fair, we have no idea what went on over there, everything is speculation at this point.
I don't see how This site could get in trouble. It is not like the copyright holders sell replacement covers. So claiming prevention of sale is not an issue. This site does not sell covers. so it is not profiting off of their copyright. Maybe someone could explain why or how there could be trouble.
Basically, in the U.S. and most other developed nations, there's pretty strict copyright laws that are there to ensure that copyright holders get final say in when and how their products/creations are used, regardless of whether or not the party using said materials is gaining from the use financially. For example, Di$ney have gone out of their way to sue small businesses like day care centers for displaying store-bought decorations of Mickey and other trademarked characters of their brand. It's petty as all hell, but Di$ney rationalizes it by saying that they do their suing because while decorations of their characters and such are perfectly legal to buy, displaying them in a business could lead people to believe that they endorse said business.
As that relates to the site, it could be argued that sites like this one and Cover Galaxy are using the original creations of others outside of what would be considered "fair use" in copyright law. Fair use typically being reserved for the press reviewing or covering the creation or products related to it and other marketing media. Here, and at the other site, it could be argued that we're taking copyrighted materials, modifying them from their original format and hosting them on the site without the consent, written or otherwise, of the copyright holders.
The thing to remember is that the copyright holder has final say as to how their item is used. It doesn't matter if money exchanges hands, it doesn't matter if no ill will was intended, it doesn't matter if the copyright holder has all-but-abandoned the item, it's theirs to do with as they please for as long as the copyright is in effect. (Which is about seventy years, depending on the country where it was registered)
Now, with all that said, would these companies go after this site or another site for hosting video game covers? It's possible. It depends on the company. I feel that Di$ney absolutely would. If they're unscrupulous enough to go after businesses that care for toddlers, there's little stopping them from going after grown adults hosting video game box art. A lot of smaller companies might as well, or individuals holding copyrights, as if they hold a smaller number of copyrighted works, they tend to be more protective of what they got and might be more inclined to keep an eye on what's going on with their few properties. It's like how you could expect a landlord with only one rental unit to be more focused on their individual property than a corporation that owns multiple apartment buildings would be toward any single unit in those buildings. It could be said that many of those companies, like LJN and Hi Tech Expressions, don't even exist anymore, but in cases like LJN's, another company now holds the copyrights to their materials. Also, take into account that many games are based on pre-existing franchises (which was LJN's bread and butter) and the copyright holders of the original material their games are based on might also have a say in what happens to their stuff. (Like WWE and Universal Studios, for instance)
So, the question is: So will they or won't they go after a site like this? The answer is somewhere in the middle. It can happen, but the risk is ultimately small for the site and the reward, beyond removal of the site (which would likely just have a spiritual successor and so on and so forth to infinity) is minimal for the companies that would be litigating against the site.
