File:Target Logo.svg

• File:Sign-for-Target-Myer-Centre.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ItsPugle as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per COM:TOO Australia, the threshold of originality effectively does not exist in Australia. Minorax^talk 02:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On the fence for this as it's a derivative of its American counterparts. --Minorax^talk 02:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Minorax: Hey! Totally get your concern here, but just to let you know, Target Australia and Target Corporation (as in Target US) are completely different companies. On the bottom of Target Australia's website, it says "Target Australia Pty Ltd is part of the Wesfarmers Ltd group and has no affiliation with Target Corporation US", and on the Target US corporate site, they say "0 stores in Australia (Yep—we get lots of questions about Target Australia, but it’s a totally separate company.)" The US logo can be kept because it falls below the TOO in the US, but since TOO isn't a valid legal argument in Australia, the Target Australia file doesn't meet the requirement that it is free use in its origin country. ItsPugle (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Delete or move to English Wikipedia as PD-ineligible-USonly until 2032 under Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle and the Commons principle that works have to be public domain in every relevant place (the country of origin, the country the file was sourced from, the country of the uploader, and Wikimedia in the U.S). (Everything after this is for people who want detailed analysis.) It's a U.S. work prior to being an Australian work (see below) but that probably doesn't matter; it appears that Australia doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term, so Australia probably gives the U.S. corporate author the same protection and Australian threshold of originality as Australia pseudonymous works, 70 years from publication, except that works before 1955 are PD because they expired before the 2005 copyright extension took effect. So we're back to whether this logo meets the Australian threshold: I think it's marginal; I can't tell if the bullseye, the word typeface, and/or the positioning between the two would be considered as original as the Aboriginal flag in COM:TOO Australia or the Edge logo in Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. The "Targets are not related" thing is suspicious (and probably irrelevant at this point, but I already researched it): Target in the U.S. and Australia have exactly the same one-ring 3:2:1-radius bullseye logo for a department store with the same name.

• U.S. Target opened its first store in 1962, filed a trademark on "Target" in 1966, and filed a trademark on bullseye logo in 1967. (Source: Lee, Thomas (2013-08-24). "Target has a twin in Australia, but they're not related". Star Tribune (web ed.). Minneapolis. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-02-20.) There are indeed U.S. trademark registrations for Target from that era. The important ones, for the store itself rather than products in the store:
  • Serial 72276713, U.S. registration 0845615, filed 1967-07-24, citing first use 1962-04-30 & first in interstate commerce 1965-12-10: The logo shown at File:Target old logo.svg, with one-ring bullseye and "TARGET" in Swiss font, no reference to color.
  • Serial 72425130 (U.S. registration 0972082, international registration 0868059, filed 1972-05-22, citing first use 1968-12-01 "used in another form on or about Apr. 30, 1962, in modified form", first use in interstate commerce 1968-12-01: The single-ring bullseye alone, "The drawing is lined for red, but color is not claimed as a feature of the mark."
• Meanwhile, in Australia:
  • en:Myer#Target, Grace Bros and merger with GJ Coles had, until recently, a claim that Lindsay's "purchased the name and logo" from U.S. Target; that turns out to have been inserted with no source whatsoever on 2007-08-03, and a citation was added later that did not verify the claim. I've removed it.
  • The Age implied in November 1969 that Target Discount Stores would start by early 1971. (Source: "Myer's enter discount war". The Age. Melbourne. 25 November 1969. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-02-20.)
• A U.S. Target spokesman said that the U.S. and Australian companies "had a conversation" back in the 1960s, but didn't elaborate. (Source: Star Tribune above.)

For the above reasons, the single-circle bullseye, with exact 3:2:1 radiuses, was clearly known in the U.S. by at least 1967 since it's on government record, and indeed published by 1962 if the owner told the truth on the filing. As long as it was published by 1967, it could not have been simultaneously first published in Australia, because Target Australia didn't exist until at least 1969 and possibly 1971. So this was almost certainly first published in the U.S. by 1967, and almost certainly without copyright formalities since it was unlikely to meet the U.S. threshold of originality anyway. Since Australia doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term, the only way that the bullseye can be public domain in Australia is if either (1) there is evidence of publication somewhere in the world prior to 1955; or (2) it turns out that Australia doesn't provide copyright if the work's publication was already ineligible for copyright at publication in the original country. Then, even if we determined that the bullseye is public domain even in Australia, we'd still have to consider the design and positioning of the word "Target" and whether any of it has been customized to the point where it matches Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos since Australia's standards are so close to the UK's. --Closeapple (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Closeapple: Totally happy that you agree that Target Australia logos require deletion, but just wanted to I guess, clarify (summarise?) a few quick things. Might just be Australian English, but that "bullseye" is called a "target" in Australian English - if someone asks what a "bullseye" or "bullseye picture" etc is in Australia, we literally think of a bull's eye; helps to explain the relationship between the name and icon in Australia etc. On the topic of Australia's recognition of the US copyright, since Target Corporation (US) did not register or express an interest in registering the branding and identity in Australia, I would struggle to think that any Australian court would recognise the US copyright as affecting Target Australia's copyright of a near-identical logo. Either way, yeah, delete or move to EN-wiki for the Target logo, and just straight up delete for File:Sign-for-Target-Myer-Centre.jpg. ItsPugle (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry about the "bullseye" misunderstanding. I probably was imprecise even for American English, and should have said "bullseye-style" target or something: In the context of an actual target, the "bullseye" is the highest-value location on the target (e.g. the red dot in this logo), not the whole target. --Closeapple (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Also added File:Sign-for-Target-Myer-Centre.jpg, which came to Commons from English Wikipedia in the first place, but has the same problem because it's not de minimis. --Closeapple (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. My take is that it is not legally possible to transfer the copyright of works that are not copyrightable. Simply, the original claimant owns nothing that they could transfer. Thus, Target Australia cannot lawfully claim (and they do not seem to claim) to have received these rights from the US business – therefore, by virtue of being a work that's PD in its home country, the logotype is PD also in Australia. — kashmīrī 15:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Why wouldn't this logo be copyrightable in Australia? Nothing here is talking about transferring copyright ownership (or licensing, which is what I think you're talking about). TOO effectively doesn't exist in Australia first of all, and this has nothing to do with the US business. This image has no relevance to the US company, and Target Australia is completely separate from Target Corporation. ItsPugle (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Because that's not how copyright works here. To be hosted on Commons, the work has to be in public domain in its home country and in the United States. Here, the logotype's home country (i.e., country of creation) is the United States, not Australia (it is irrelevant that an Australian business has adopted the US work for its own use).

Otherwise, Commons would not be able to host any PD-simple file because all such files will be protected somewhere in the world. — kashmīrī 09:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: This file has literally nothing to do with the US. The file we are talking about here is PURELY AUSTRALIAN. This logo is not adopted from the US. This logo is not from any US company. It is entirely from Target Australia, and hence, is subject to Australian copyright, not US copyright. Please get your facts straight before making blatantly wrong statements like an Australian logo is subject to the copyright claims/state of a completely different business. ItsPugle (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the distinctive part of the logo (the red bullseye) does not seem like an indigenous Australian creation – it had been, in exactly the same shape and colour, the logotype of Target Corporation in the US since 1968. An Australian company that has copied it in 1973 cannot claim copyright on it. — kashmīrī 11:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — kashmīrī 11:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: And what part of both Target's using the same 'targeting' symbol means that the Target Australia logo cannot be copyrighted in Australia? We've already established that the two companies are completely separate from each other, and in fact, Lindsey's (which is what Target Australia used to be called) began calling itself Lindsey's Target in March 1968 - early in the same year that Target Corporation in the US began to use the two-ring rondel (and only 5 years after the company began). The Target logo or brand was never protected in Australia by the US company, so any consideration of them is literally irrelevant (something we've also already established above). ItsPugle (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Target Logo.svg

• And File:Sign-for-Target-Myer-Centre.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating for deletion. The previous administrator has not provided any rationale or explanation on how they came to their decision, and when asked on their talk page (here), has explicitly admitted to not following the precautionary principle policy.

Per my message to the previous administrator, this is an Australian copyright discussion, not American. This is an Australian company, that operates in Australia, and is registered under Australian law. The TOO in Australia is incredibly low (three horizontal rectangles have been successfully copyrighted in court), and PD Text Logo has never been upheld in an Australian court (and also wouldn't likely apply in Australia, again due to such a low TOO). ItsPugle (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Australian copyright law is annoying. To be considered original the work just has to have used some sort of skill and labor in the creation of a work. The graphic 'bullseye' portion of the AUS logo was copied from the US company's logo back in the 1970's (this is shown by TargetAUS previously having used the -exact same- logo as TargetUSA, wordmark included, see USA, AUS) so that portion isn't protectable. So basically the 2014 logo is either the unprotectable combination of the TargetUSA bullseye and whatever font they used, or a protectable derivative work using the works. This deletion hinges on whether choosing of the font and arrangement of the elements is enough skill and labor under Australian law, which I am unsure of. -Thespoondragon (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Thespoondragon: Yep, very annoying. Part of me kind of struggles with the whole 'Target Australia is just a copy of Target USA' as both companies have explicitly stated they are independent and while there is a fair whack of similarity between their earlier brandings and their segment of the retail market, they have been pretty far apart in both for at least two decades now. Looking at the Logos Fandom, it seems there was a one-year cross over between the two using the outline logo (that is, the year that Target Australia started using it, Target America moved to new branding). And then from 1989, the Australian one started with the logo seen in the Myer Centre sign image which was never used by Target US. It just seems to be that bit too detached - the current Target Australia logo only shares the bullseye motif with the US one, and has a different font and colour. Anyways, if the Aboriginal Australian Flag is copyright protected, I would be surprised if the arrangement and font choice would be below-the-bar. ItsPugle (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Kept: per discussion. The logo's are without doubt in PD in the USA, and as discussed, copied by the Australian company. They cannot own the copyright it as they copied it from somebody else. So imho these logo's can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)