A reflection

[Flyman]

I think that all the members, me inclusive of the great community AGS, adore the graphic adventures. I wondered me what they think the great software's house as Lucas, Sierra etc. on the subject!!
Are they pleased of inspire amateur productions or do you clone on their themes? Or often angry, do they try to brake the inspired productions?
Do limitations or copyright exist on titles as Indiana Jones, Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion etc, or do they belong to the public dominion today?  Do I think that the great software's house, they would owe to consider the productions of fans and not to discriminate her, you thing thought of it??

[Snarky]

Look, companies aren't people. Companies don't "think" anything, they're not "pleased" or "angry." Some people in the companies might have those emotions, but the companies themselves just take positions (primarily) based on what's calculated to be in the company's best interest.

Sierra doesn't exist any longer, and LucasArts today is a very different company from the one that made Monkey Island and Grim Fandango. No, nothing they made is public domain (Sierra's IP is owned by Activision Blizzard), copyright on those games is set to last another 70 years or so. Both companies have been known to shut down AGS games that infringe on their copyright, though others get a pass.

The people at Sierra and LucasArts who made all the great adventure games (Roberta Williams, Jane Jensen, Lori and Corey Cole, Al Lowe, Ron Gilbert, Tim Schaeffer, Dave Grossman, Steve Purcell etc.) mostly seem to dig the fan games, and have given several their official or unofficial blessing. None of them actually work for Sierra or LucasArts any longer, though (a number of ex-LucasArts adventure game veterans went to TellTale, which has licensed Monkey Island and Sam & Max for new episodic games), and they don't own the rights to the games they made.

[Ghost]

What Snarky said, yeah. I think the only building having thoughts on adventure games would be Warehouse 13  

That being said, some adventure games have entered the obscure abandonware/none-copyright state that makes it possible to get away with remakes. I think the people who made THEM won't mind remakes, and may even be flattered. Telling them about said remakes would involve a Tardis, though.

[Flyman]

Mine was only a reflection...I think that the software's house should be fierce that fanses hail them or that to distance of years the old glories are recognized..I infuse we are us fans to give him life and to give life to their characters

[Ghost]

But the old "houses" who made the old, classic adventure games do no longer exist, and very few of them still publish adventure games. To the aforementioned houses we don't MATTER as long as we don't buy Quake 6, or come over with a bulldozer.

I live in Germany, and in these parts we technically have ONE publisher of quality commercial adventure games, Daedalic. I know that they like the indie scene, and technically they started there. But I seriously doubt that their employees houses sit around all day thinking "Man, I am so glad that there are people out there who love adventure games because that proves we inspired them!" They surely are glad that people still like (and buy) adventure games, no doubt.

About the "give life to their characters", that's stretching the point even more. Why would a copyright owning house be happy that people feel free to treat their copyrighted material as a happy hunting ground for fangames? As soon as I rip some Guybrush sprites and start to take a stab at a MI sequel I am actively violating copyright. It's often tolerated, but there have been chease-and-desist letters too.

I think your vision is a bit heavy on the "pink glasses" side. Nostalgia filter. The setup you wonder about does not exist, but still, as Snarky said, the individual developers of those "golden age classics" surely will occasionally think that they helped to shape a genre that's still not as dead as some people think it should be, and may feel quite happy about that.  

[Baron]

I wondered me what they think the great software's house as Lucas, Sierra etc. on the subject!!

Corporations may not have hearts or souls like people do..... well, some people anyway.  But you can't tell me that Sierra Log House Building up in the mountains didn't have spirit.  You know what I'm talking about: where the two guys from Andromeda get dropped off at the end of SQ3.  I don't know if that's actually where Ken really ran the company out of (and I've read that Ken was more about the money than the creation of awesomeness), but the idea of that rustic idyllic retreat as sanctuary for artistic brilliance has always inspired me. 

As for copyright infringement, my personal philosophy would be "no profit, no foul."  If someone were to make a fan game in the Charlie Foxtrot universe (hey, it could happen!) then I wish them the best.  If someone tried to sell a Charlie Foxtrot game, I'd feel that crossed the line.  This is kind of the de facto position of the current copyright holders for Sierra and Lucas Arts games: Kings Quest remakes, new Space Quest episodes and Maniac Mansion Sequels (to name but a few) are all freely distributed despite technically infringing on those company's intellectual property rights.  In effect, they are just recognizing the realities of the internet -it would be far too expensive to completely wipe something off the net once it has gone viral (if only in a small way).  Nevertheless, I do agree that those houses, or whoever bought them out, do own their IP for commercial purposes until such time as their rights expire (although I think these timelines are far too long).