
Google Shopping: Upload Your Content Without Watermarks or Be Banned - johnnyg
http://pastebin.com/TN2tzRnE
======
millzlane
Let let me explain why one might watermark their photos. I sell aftermarket
car parts for JDM vehicles. Most of these products don't have images from the
manufacturer. Why? Well there lots of reasons but it boils down to different
configurations. It would be too time consuming to take an image of every
product in every configuration for every model they sell. So they may have a
generic picture of an exhaust system, that may or may not be the product
you're paying for.

I know that consumers like to see what they buy. I want to have pictures of
every image I sell. To do that, I need to order 1 of everything I plan to sell
so I can take photos of each item. As you can see it gets pretty costly. I'm
spending time, money and effort, to give the best possible shopping
experience. All while letting the customer know I have a product in my hands
that my competitors don't.

My competitors on the other hand. They just signed up for a new drop shipping
account with the same distributor but guess what? They have no images of the
items they sell and have no capital to order the item in. So where do they get
those images? You guessed it, from everyone else.

When I first started I remember giving discounts to customers who would allow
me to open their package and take showcase photos before sending them. I would
be upset if someone used my photos without my permission. I don't have time or
money to police the internet. So I protect my investment through the use of
the water mark. If not, it'd be like Ebay where you see 40 different sellers
using the same exact product image, atrocious.

~~~
RokStdy
Thanks for the interesting perspective. This doesn't help you since you
already have a catalog of photos, but I wonder if you might get around this
rule if you took pictures of <part> on a backdrop with your logo repeated.
That way, sure, I could try to crop it to get rid of your logo, but if it's an
irregular shape I'd have to Photoshop your stuff out. Or maybe a sticker with
your logo on an unimportant part of the product.

~~~
Pxtl
That does restrain them a bit though - with a watermark, they can batch-change
the nature or obtrusiveness of the watermark, they can resell the unmarked
images, they can update their logo freely.

None of that can be done with the real-world-logo appearing on the product.

~~~
sentenza
It might be possible to use a greenscreen, though.

You do your photoshoot with a greenscreen in the background/part of the
background, then digitally replace the grenscreen with your logo. Since your
logo and the product are mixed at the edge pixels, it will look crappy if
cropped, whereas you yourself have the greenscreen originals and can change
the background whenever and however you like.

~~~
Pxtl
If you wanted to be really super-fancy you could apply some image recognition
decals to the greenscreen that would allow a program to determine the
orientation of the platform below or background behind the object. Then you
can actually do a more sophisticated projection of your logo onto the surface
and keep the shadows provided by your subject. But at this point it's gotten a
little sophisticated for a small seller.

------
jawns
I was curious what size these images are being displayed within Google
Shopping, so I checked it out. They're displayed at a standard thumbnail size
during search and a larger size in the detail view. At thumbnail size, the
watermark is barely noticeable. At the larger size, it's clearly there but
isn't gaudy or anything.

I understand the merchant's motivation for putting it there -- they don't want
their images stolen and reused without attribution (although I wouldn't
imagine there are a ton of people out there trying to steal images of CPAP
masks).

I don't really understand Google's motivation for banning such watermarks. So
long as they're not the type of full-image watermarks that cover the entire
product and make it difficult to tell what you're looking at, I don't think
they significantly degrade the user experience.

I guess what I'm saying is: Not all watermarks are created equal. The kind
that make for a bad user experience should rightfully be banned ... but this
is just a tiny credit line in the bottom right corner and isn't really
covering up the image.

~~~
lazyjones
> _I don 't really understand Google's motivation for banning such
> watermarks._

They want to use the images for other purposes. Shopping merchants are just
there to create content for Google's various venues.

~~~
RexRollman
Winner.

------
jonknee
Google Shopping that is, not Google. Google Shopping is the paid eCommerce
inclusion service. If you break the rules in AdWords you'll also be kicked
out.

This is a sensible rule too--if everyone had watermarks the pages would be
hideous.

~~~
maratd
> This is a sensible rule too--if everyone had watermarks the pages would be
> hideous.

So as a merchant, I have to invest a ton of money into getting quality
photography of my products ... only to have my competitors use those same
images for free?

~~~
jonknee
No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do
whatever, but why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and
then cover it up with a watermark?

If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point
is customer service and price--I'd worry much more about that than someone
copying your image. Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images
anyways.

~~~
maratd
> No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do
> whatever

Did I say otherwise?

> why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover
> it up with a watermark?

To make sure that this quality photography stays as a competitive asset or if
used by others, turns into advertising for my store.

> If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive
> point is customer service and price

When you're selling something online, photography is most certainly a
differentiator. It is also a substantial barrier to entry for the competition,
because quality photography is difficult and expensive.

> Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways.

Manufacturer images, when they exist, are almost always terrible. Having good
photos to clearly show off the product and everything included is the
difference between a buyer clicking BUY and having them wander off.

~~~
Spoom
Use a digital watermark. You lose the advertising edge if competitors use it
but you can prove that the copyright belongs to you and force them to take it
down.

~~~
simoncion
> Use a digital watermark.

As opposed to those analog watermarks that we've all be hand-applying to our
JPEGs? :)

~~~
Spoom
Digital watermarks are typically invisible.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking)

~~~
simoncion
The results from this search are at odds with your assertion:

[http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=watermarked+image...](http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=watermarked+images)

Regardless, you seem to have missed the gentle humour in my original post.

------
protomyth
If I understand this correctly, I type something like "hard drive" and then
see a box to the right with a "Shop for hard drive on Google". The box has
pictures and prices. Clicking on that link brings up rows of products. Each
row has a picture, product name, and text saying something like "$59.99 from
25+ stores".

It looks to me like Google is going to use one of the merchants images of the
products to summarize those 25+ stores in a row. If the image Google picks is
watermarked then it is bad for Google.

So, instead of Google getting an image of each product themselves, they get
the merchant to provide them with a generic image to sell everyone's products.
I guess if you use Google's service, you should provide them with the generic
image they want and save the good image with measurements and such for your
website.

This seems to be another algorithmic solution for Google.

~~~
judk
Sounds like Google rebuilding yet another pillar of their business on a
foundation of copyright violation.

~~~
malandrew
Not really. You give them a license to use your image by using their service.
That's not a violation if you voluntarily license the image to them per the
terms of service. If you're not happy with this, go elsewhere with your images
and your products.

~~~
protomyth
Given them a license is necessary so they can display the images, but Google
using the license to help sell competitor's products because Google does not
want the burden of procuring their own photographs is pretty scummy.

------
ig1
Seems perfectly reasonable, if you want to supply an image for a product via a
shop feed it should reflect the product and not be an advertisement for the
shop.

They don't seem to prohibit non-promotional (invisible) watermarks if the
concern is image theft.

~~~
annnnd
Why would invisible watermarks in any way deter the thieves?

Granted, you can catch them if that is your intention, but it more effort for
less gain.

I don't understand the reason for this policy.

~~~
cma
Thieves can already scrub out visible watermarks with content-aware fill etc.

------
gnu8
The real reason may be that Google wants to use the images itself. It sure
would make things easy if they could force their merchants to provide
definitive and reusable images for all products ever, particularly to compete
with Amazon.

------
GrowMap
Everything Google does benefits big brands. This hurts small business and that
has obviously been their goal since their CEO said the Internet is a
"cesspool" and favoring big brands is how we're going to clean it up.

Google has a virtual monopoly on paid and organic search. Nothing converts as
well as search. They are severely damaging small businesses right and left. It
takes dozens of other sources of customers to replace Google.

Allowing Google to take over the Internet as we know it and turn it into their
own personal business is dangerous and unethical. That is why since commerce
began we have been warned about the dangers of monopolies. They became a
monopoly through the media - both owned by the wealthy elite. The media
chooses the winners from the products they built in the first place.

If you use Google Shopping to display your products I encourage you to log out
of Google and go see what they actually display. You are likely to find that
your products never show up for the money keyword phrases even when you
specify you only want to see the products in your store. But search on
something general and you'll confirm all your products are in their feed. That
is an even larger issue than watermarks. Both are symptoms of Google being far
too powerful. I first wrote about that in [http://growmap.com/farmer-update-
google-competitors/](http://growmap.com/farmer-update-google-competitors/)

Each major "Borg" site first hands small business a way to make money more
easily and then starts taking it away. That is how AdWords worked, and now
organic, Google Shopping, Facebook, etc. Expect it with Twitter, Pinterest,
Snapchat - any entity that is "Borg".

Users handed Google all this power and they can take it away, but first
businesses and bloggers must offer them alternatives and make it clear why we
need to use something else.

I know that sounds unlikely, but the tide does eventually turn. Wal-mart
killed small towns across America - but they are making a comeback now that
people realize what it cost them to be obsessed with cheap. We can do the same
online, but it won't happen overnight.

~~~
simoncion
> since their CEO said the Internet is a "cesspool" and favoring big brands is
> how we're going to clean it up.

When did he say this? Can you provide a citation?

~~~
cypher543
[http://www.wired.com/business/2008/10/google-ceo-
call/](http://www.wired.com/business/2008/10/google-ceo-call/)

~~~
simoncion
Thanks for the link!

The quote is:

'"Brands are the solution, not the problem," Mr. Schmidt said. "Brands are how
you sort out the cesspool."'

Notice the absence of the word "big". His statement isn't wrong.

In this new world that worships advertising lingo, Wikipedia is a brand.
Archive.org is a brand. Slashdot, HN, iFixit, LWN are all brands. I understand
that this is a disgusting thing to say, but do you disagree with the substance
of the statement?

~~~
cypher543
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I was just posting the
link. :)

~~~
simoncion
No worries. I was talking to the GP with those comments. I should learn to use
more words to make my intended audience clear. :)

Sorry about that.

------
xiphias
I was working on Google Shopping. Lots of images are checked by a combination
of machine learning and humans (still, errors happen, as it's lots of data to
deal with).

The main problem with the watermarking is that the images can be shown in
product listings where an image like this wouldn't look nice and also the
image can be used for a product that is sold by multiple merchants.

~~~
msy
So in short Google wants to use merchant's product images, which they've
worked to produce or paid for as generic product images without compensation
and if merchants don't like it their account is banned.

~~~
icebraining
Google wants to use them according to the agreement that the merchant signed.

~~~
sentenza
And that's why I'll be cheering the EU regulators that will sue Google into
the ground should their shoppy-thingy ever gain the marketshare of Amazon or
Google search.

~~~
icebraining
They will sue them for preventing merchants from putting watermarks on their
images? I find that hard to believe.

~~~
sentenza
No. They would be sued for forcing merchants to let Google and others use
their copyrighted material using the threat of banning them from the store.
But that is only relevant if they are one of the dominant players.

The reasoning is that they would then be using their market dominance to force
merchants to forego their (IP) rights, which is in conflict with EU anti-trust
regulations.

~~~
icebraining
But why do say they force the merchants to give up their IP rights?

------
velco
Just create a practically invisible watermark of your photos by, for example,
subtly altering only one of the RGB channels

[http://www.psdbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/4-blue-
chan...](http://www.psdbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/4-blue-channel-
outer-glow.jpg)

------
chrisfarms
Not sure why this gaining traction?. The rule seems fair, and someone broke
the rule? Am I missing something.

~~~
protomyth
Because it looks like Google is using one merchant's carefully photographed
image of a product for all the merchants selling that product. This seems a
bit unfair.

~~~
daemin
They should probably compensate the merchant who's photos they use with
adwords or shopping credit for each photo that they use. Otherwise it seems
too scummy.

------
webdude
We got hit with the same issue just a month ago, and were actually completely
kicked out of the Shopping Feeds. We were finally able to talk to the right
person at Google and get reactivated for a two week extension to give us a
little more time to become compliant...at which point we then just removed all
but the newly unwatermarked images from the feed and for the past 4 weeks have
been doing nothing but recreating non-watermarked images for all of our
products and slowly building up our feed again.

I understand all the arguments...but when you're a company who IS trying to
protect hard work in shooting great high def images in-house, it is very
personal.

------
lnanek2
I would prefer my images not have watermarks, but I'd also prefer the best
images. This seems counter to that goal. I know some merchants like Newegg
invest money into having their own photos done and it is very valuable for
making it clear what connector components have and the like, but this makes it
not quite so valuable to them since others could pretty easily reuse the
images without being caught and without quality loss of watermark removal.

------
moocowduckquack
Include a flyer with a logo in the image and include the printed flyer in
every delivery.

------
joshuaheard
Photographs have a copyright automatically attached to them when created. You
could use a copyright enforcement action against your competitors. Look at the
DMCA.

------
mschuster91
Is this a message initiated by a human, or is it just some algorithm sending
it?

Is the reply-address one of those "smart" robots or can a real human be
reached there?

~~~
johnnyg
I'm a human and I'm really going to lose business over this policy.

~~~
jonknee
How so? If you make money through Google Shopping you should follow the rules.
If you don't, well then no loss to you.

~~~
commentzorro
Like the OP said, because of the photos.

In business a photo can often make the difference between a sale or no sale,
or more important, which shop the sale goes to. Some businesses, like fashion,
are almost entirely "photo" based. Others, like food, cars, etc. rely on it
extensively.

Here's an example in which, for arguments sake, we state that all non-photo
factors are equal and the best they can be.

Your business spends $100,000 a year to have top quality photos taken for the
products you sell and you find the photos lead to a five to ten fold
improvement in sales vs. stock or no photos. Now say all your competitors just
steal your images and use them for their sites. Your sales drop back to where
they were and your advantage is gone. And now you've got to make up the
$100,000 to top it all off.

Having a watermark won't stop lesser competitors from sealing your image, but
other "on par" competitors will likely not due to potential litigation. If you
don't have a watermark everyone steals it with the line, "I didn't know it was
something I couldn't use ... my web guys just found it on the internet. I'll
talk with them." (or whatever) So now you have to constantly police the
internet for competitors using your images, deal with take-downs, and lawyers.

Hope I've cleared things up a bit.

~~~
jonknee
... Then don't use advertising services like Google Shopping.

It's a pretty easy equation--do you make enough money through Google Shopping
that it makes up for any potential losses from others stealing your image
(which you can of course still go after legally)?

~~~
scrollbar
Don't like one of your professors this semester? It's a pretty easy equation.
Drop out of college.

Not happy with NSA collecting dragnet surveillance on you? It's a pretty easy
equation. Renounce your citizenship.

Neighbor making too much noise at night? It's a pretty easy equation. Move out
(or kill them?)

Why can't someone that's party to a relationship make a complaint about an
aspect of that relationship?

------
adamsrog
Google Shopping: Obey the TOS You Accepted or Be Banned

Seems reasonable.

------
mark-r
Would it be possible to have two images, a thumbnail submitted to Google and a
full-size one with watermark to display on your web site?

~~~
johnnyg
We looked at that, but the thumbnail would not be used as google displays both
thumbnail and full sized (on mouse over) versions.

------
ivanca
Link-bait; It should say "Google Adwords" not "Google".

~~~
johnnyg
I've edited the title to specify Google Shopping.

------
adrow
I think the reasoning would be that by putting your URL in the image, you are
potentially encouraging people to enter it manually instead of clicking Google
Shopping's link to the product.

~~~
emilv
No, most people would not do that. They would click the links on the page.

~~~
adrow
It doesn't have to be most people, with the traffic levels that Google
probably deal with, even a small percentage doing that could add up to a lot
of 'lost' click revenue.

------
raldi
Could someone paste the image links below? Pastebin appears to be overriding
my phone's ability to select and copy text.

~~~
mbrutsch
[http://www.cpap.com/productpage/disposable-white-filters-
res...](http://www.cpap.com/productpage/disposable-white-filters-respironics-
duet-lx-1-pack.html)

[http://www.cpap.com/productpage/probasics-zzz-mask-sg-
full-f...](http://www.cpap.com/productpage/probasics-zzz-mask-sg-full-face-
mask-cushion.html)

------
j2kun
Why not Fourier watermarks?

~~~
dudus
If you take a screenshot of an image with a Fourier Watermark does it retain
the watermark?

If it does it's a better solution than using a metadata watermark.

~~~
j2kun
That's an excellent question! Something I should explore on my blog... :)

------
lelf
Did you accept their TOS?

