The way I see it, it does not matter how big Nintendo is, or how small the print run is, or how big of fans the makers are, they are using content they don't have the right to.
Heck, Nintendo being so big of a cooperation gives even more of a reason to protect their assets with so much on the line. One big complaint was a seal that was too close to Nintendo's Official Seal and the fear it might confuse buyers to fhink it
I'd feel differently if it was a free release, or full of derivative fan art, but it's still a group of people selling stolen art for-profit. Even if it's a limited print run, they are still profiting off selling art they don't own. (Judging by how much I was able to add to my cart) There are currently 2,796 Super Famicom books in stock at their site, even if they are only making £5 off the £25 book, that is almost £14,000 in profit if all sell. This is probably a full time job for some of the people who work there.
t. However, if someone were to produce a book of all your artwork, telling anyone who bought it that it was your artwork, explaining the background to each piece, and didn't ask you for anything other than your blessing, would you be upset?
Well if it was being sold, I would want a cut of the profits and input on how I would want it presented, or at least clear disclaimers stating it is endorsed but not affiliated or whatever. I would want to make sure all art is properly colored, all information is correct, all characters are displayed properly (The character far left in my description has a marking on the left eye and right arm, I would want to make sure no images are flipped) and that the book is not manufactured poorly, ect.
Most companies have a clear guide that details how to display their logos or characters, a 1993 Nintendo licensing guide was leaked and is an interesting thing to thumb through.
Though the book manufactures did NOT ask permission from every single developer of every game. I think I read they asked Nintendo UK (Unsure if true), though it is also being sold internationally and Nintendo US struck it down. Even if they did not it contains art from Capcom, Konami, Husdon Soft, and tons of other companies they use art from. This book seems like a legal nightmare, if they were to properly license it.
I don't think that video game art should be treated any differently to any other media, I just think that the copyright holder should apply a little logic to who it's worth pursuing, and who is actually giving them free publicity. The book is not using Nintendo art and passing it off as something else, or using it to sell something else (other than the book).
It most likely was not Reggie or Miamotto who sent the DMCA, it was lawyers who just saw "People selling art Nintendo owns without proper permission" and sent the DMCA, they don't have the authority to grant license on behaf of Nintendo, and people in charge probably never even saw it, they are way to busy to deal with every copyright infringement case, that's why they hire lawers. I think it falls more on the people wanting to use the art to seek permission to clear it before making it, than the company to just let things slide.
Sometimes lawyers do DMCA things the artist is OK with, Lawyers from Metallica sent a cease and desist to a cover band, despite Metallica themselves being ok with it, and they cleared it up afterwards.
Super Mario is Nintendo's livelihood. Especially in the current generation when their first party titles are all they got to sell systems.
