If you're arguing whether it's legal - well, it's already copyright infringement. I don't think there's any additional problem with having asked for credits, it's already copyright infringement, making the question moot. If you're arguing if it's ethical - well yes, I see it being a bit of a double standard to expect credit, whilst ignoring copyright. A counter argument would be that, with "abandonware", it's hard to know what the original creators really want (especially since the authors will typically not be the copyright holders - the copyright would be owned by the company, and maybe that games company has since been bought out by some large company that now owns the copyright, but had nothing to do with the creation), and as someone pointed out, if you're making use of them (legally or otherwise), you're happy to benefit from the work he did.

[quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1341275864' post='4955122']
[quote name='ILoveJesus' timestamp='1341269878' post='4955093']
I was just angry that someone would rip sprites and expect that he has the right to demand someone to give him credit for it.

Why does that make you angry? Given you want to use the sprite, the ripper has apparently performed a service which you consider valuable and are unable or unwilling to do yourself -- given that you're choosing to ignore the legal problems it doesn't seem unreasonable that a person should expect you to acknowledge their work.
[/quote]

As a video game programmer myself I would be pretty angry if someone ripped sprites from my game, posted it on a website and then demanded credit to anyone who used said sprites. It just isn't right.
[/quote]What if someone ripped sprites from your game, posted it to a website, but didn't demand credit - would that be okay?

[quote name='ILoveJesus' timestamp='1341260356' post='4955028']
It was footage recorded from a video game and with no commentary. I know what you are saying can not be true in such a case. If it was true I should be able to record a clip from a movie and repost it on youtube claiming it is as my own property.

Back in the nineties, I was making a game that used images of famous artworks. I didn't have to go to the estate of the centuries-dead artist, but I was not permitted to just scan an image of the artwork from a book, either (the book publisher could have gone after us for that). I had to go through a rights researcher, who obtained an image from a museum or some such. In the game's credits, I didn't credit the researcher for the image (but I did credit the researcher for her being part of the game team). I also didn't credit the original artist (everybody knows who created the Mona Lisa, for instance), but I did have to credit the image supplier. There were a lot of such images in that game -- the credits were VERY long and tedious.[/quote]In the US, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ruled that exact copies of public domain images could not be covered by copyright, because the copies lack originality. This issue also came up with Wikipedia, when IIRC a UK museum tried to prevent them from using images from their website, that were scans of public domain artwork. The case was in 1999, so you wouldn't have had that precedence in the early '90s - but it seems that (at least in the US - other countries may vary), there isn't a requirement for simply making a direct copy of artwork.

(It could indeed be another matter if there is a creative element.)

In the US, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Interesting. Would that that ruling had been made about eight years earlier.

does anyone have the legal right to demand credit for using sprites they do not own?[/quote]

In general, no.-
If they have taken images they do not own, and done something original to them, they have created what is called a "Derivative work." (work that is derived from another work). The problem is, you can't make a derivative work (except in a few cases) without permission from the copyright holder of the original work.

As an example:
Some took an image of Mario, washed out the colors and duplicated the image in 40 rows, each consisting of 80 little mario images. I.e. made an interesting poster, based on a Mario image.
That poster is a "Derivative work". If it was made without permission, then the poster creator can not own copyright to the poster.
However, the poster creator MAY own certain elements of the poster--elements that are the original creative expression of the poster creator (the changing of color images and arrangement into the poster), but were not the mario images themselves.

So if you scanned in and used the poster, you'd be in double trouble-- first to Nintendo for using Mario images and maybe also even to the poster creator, for using his 'original creative expression' of the unauthorized images. (source).