The original point of copyrights was two fold:
A) To give an inventor of something a monopoly on that thing so as to have an incentive for creating new things, thus encouraging innovation
B) To make the monopoly temporary so that the inventor will have to continue creating after profiting from their creation, thus again encouraging invention.
Originally, copyrights lasted a couple decades. That way, if you create something, the government guarantees that you have a reasonable chance of a profit without people pilfering your work. Then it expires, and you have to start being creative again. This went on fairly well until Disney created Mickey Mouse. They (and other, similar large organizations) lobbied pretty hard and created two changes:
A) Inventors don't have to be individuals. If you invent something, you are no longer guaranteed to have a monopoly over your work; instead, your employer is. (← this is a biased account and not entirely true, I admit, but I'm politicking here, so hush!)
B) [and this is the point applicable to my comment before] The length of government protection now lasts many decades past the death of the inventor.
Basically, the running gag is that every couple decades, we get close to the point where the copyright for most Mickey Mouse works would run out, so Disney lobbies to get the maximum amount of years of protection extended, thereby ensuring that even though the creator of the character has long since passed, other people who did not create the character retain control of the character.
Nintendo will most assuredly act in a similar fashion and attempt to ensure that nobody except for Nintendo employees can make a game with the character in it, even when the guy who made them has long since run into his Goomba. :/
ITT, stealth Libertarianism!
Think anyone that's against corporatism hates this shit, not just libertarians

At least fake Chinese Disney Land is kicking against the system.