I go through the same contradictions every time we have this discussion people:
There are some valid points, and mostly no reality to what the articles are about.

Key points:
A)I had pictures of people in suspenders that are from the early 1900's, or so it seems.
B)There is nothing copyrightable about a person going in a direction and jumping, or any other graphical representation thereof.
C)There is also nothing copywritable about any of the other characters in the game, since they are all generic pixelated graphical representations of other beings in REAL LIFE.
i)little furry creatures
ii)turtles and reptiles
iii)castles, flagpoles, bricks, flowers, fireworks, etc. etc. etc. yada bla bla blah.

And D: THE REAL KICKER TO THIS ARTICLES DEBUNKERY)

"Which would allow Full Screen Mario, and lots of projects like it, to reimagine old video games for a new generation, without facing legal threats from incumbents like Nintendo."
Taken straight from the article...
The word incumbents used in reference to Nintendo....
...not that they were and are innovators and leaders in the home computer console gaming system industry, not that they helped bring entertainment to people for years and years, developed and distributed fun products and loving character plots, etc.. now the term "incumbents" is being attached to describe Nintendo, whereas in reality NOBODY WOULD'VE EVER EVEN HEARD OF SMB in the first place without those guys, therefor the reality of that situation is that we are in fact the exact opposite of "incumbent" when it comes to you other people's realization of the entity known as Super Mario.

Thanks for your time. Have a nice day!

Post Script: FSM SUX!