en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Princess_of_Mars
2 corrections found
Except for Guatemala, Honduras, Samoa, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Colombia, Equatorial Guinea and Mexico, Burroughs' works, including A Princess of Mars, has entered public domain in the rest of the world
This is too broad: Spain is a counterexample. Spanish official sources say authors who died before December 7, 1987 remain protected for 80 years after death, and Edgar Rice Burroughs died in 1950.
Full reasoning
This statement says that, aside from a short list of countries, Burroughs' works are already in the public domain everywhere else. That is incorrect.
A clear counterexample is Spain, which is not on the article's exception list. Official Spanish public-domain guidance says that works by authors who died before December 7, 1987 are protected for 80 years after death. The National Library of Spain's public-domain guidance likewise notes that in Spain the term is 80 years for authors who died before that date.
Edgar Rice Burroughs' own official biography gives his death date as March 19, 1950. That means his works are not yet public domain in Spain as of July 3, 2026; under the Spanish rule, they do not enter the public domain there until January 1, 2031.
Because Spain is an unlisted exception, the article's blanket claim about "the rest of the world" is false.
2 sources
- Autores en Dominio Público | Biblioteca Nacional de España
En el caso de España, los derechos de explotación de una obra subsisten 70 años después de la muerte del autor... No obstante, el plazo es de 80 años para los autores fallecidos antes del 7 de diciembre de 1987.
- ERB Biography < Edgar Rice Burroughs
It was there, on March 19th, 1950, that Edgar Rice Burroughs set down his pen for the last time.
which invalidates trademark on public domain works.
This overstates what Dastar held. The case did not broadly invalidate trademarks on public-domain works; it held that Lanham Act §43(a) does not bar uncredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.
Full reasoning
The article's description of Dastar is too broad and legally inaccurate.
The Supreme Court did not hold that trademarks on public-domain works are categorically invalid. In Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., the Court held that Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work. In other words, the case limited a particular kind of false-designation / reverse-passing-off claim; it was not a blanket rule that all trademarks connected to public-domain works are invalid.
That distinction matters because the USPTO still recognizes that some marks tied to creative works can be registrable: titles of single creative works are generally not registrable, but titles of a series of creative works may register if they function as source identifiers. So the governing rule is narrower than the article says.
In short, Dastar did not "invalidate trademark on public domain works" as a general proposition; it addressed whether the Lanham Act could be used to stop uncredited copying of a public-domain work.
2 sources
- Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Oyez
In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.
- Trademark refusal: Title of a single creative work | USPTO
Your trademark won't register if it's only used as the title of a single creative work. However, if your trademark is the name or title of a series of creative works, it may register.