The article is clear except for one point which is totally confused,
where it said that "Baldwin was selling their intellectual property".
That is nonsense. Baldwin was selling little models of characters.
Based on the facts stated in the article, it appears
these models infringed the copyright on the video game.
That's a simple, clear way to say what happened.
But he wasn't "selling their copyright"; there is no way
he could do that.
As for "intellectual property", that's just a way of lumping together
copyright with a dozen or so other unrelated laws that are irrelevant
to this case. Those laws really exist, but "intellectual property" is
a fiction -- an overgeneralization that spreads confusion every time
it is used. The reason it's used is that some lawyers and PR
organizations find it effective propaganda for their interests; and
since they use it, people assume it is more than a fiction.
If you want to understand what copyright law says and does, and think
about the issues it raises, the first step is to expunge "intellectual
property" from your thinking.
See
http/www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation.