You're parroting the law, not giving any real reason. "It's legitimate" .. but why? Eevee has actual arguments here, namely that it doesn't promote the advancement of the arts at all which is the sole purpose of copyright.
Why shouldn't I be able to draw artistic representations of a game character?
I can draw a representation of Donald Trump with no problem (as many political cartoonists do) and I own that because I made it.
Why the hell does some random digital character have more rights than a human?
I know this is a bit of a silly analogy, but your comment is silly to begin with.
It's obvious that if I'm taking someone's art or work and re-selling it with some minor transformations, that's wrong.
But if I put work into making something that has my flair, my touch, my innovation, why should the original artist profit from it?
I gave the reason, you are ignoring it. Because a creator has the right to decide how it's character is drawn, in what context it's put, for what it is used, etc. it is also a protection against parasites and stealers. If you don't understand that you are not a creator.
Create your own characters and the problem is solved. Or ask for a license. The creator may give you a free license if your drawings and use of it match his liking.
A copyright is a protection, not an interdiction. Ask the permission to the creator. The decision belongs to him and that is, in my opinion, right.
Don't down vote me if you simply disagree with me.
You seem to think that the right of a creator to control how people use their creation is self-evident, along with other self-evident rights, like the right to a fair trial.
Other people like me don't feel that it is self-evident, rather, we feel that it is only justified if it effectively encourages the sciences and the arts. Our axiom, the self-evident truth that we're working for, is the flourishing of arts and science, and if we can find a way to do that which doesn't allow creators to dictate what people do with their copy of Mario, all the better.
Once we realise that we're assuming different axioms, we can stop talking past each other.
Why shouldn't I be able to draw artistic representations of a game character?
I can draw a representation of Donald Trump with no problem (as many political cartoonists do) and I own that because I made it. Why the hell does some random digital character have more rights than a human? I know this is a bit of a silly analogy, but your comment is silly to begin with.
It's obvious that if I'm taking someone's art or work and re-selling it with some minor transformations, that's wrong. But if I put work into making something that has my flair, my touch, my innovation, why should the original artist profit from it?