Medium Updated the Revised Terms and Conditions — But Did Anything Change

As hundreds of writers kicked back against Medium’s newly released terms, the language in the terms was updated, but was it a U-turn

Note: This article quotes heavily and directed from the Medium terms of conditions (direct quotes are in italics and should not be viewed as an attempt to plagiarise content)

Our Friends at Medium released a new blog post 3 hours ago. In response to the indignant feedback from writers, they revised the Terms of Service they updated a few days ago. Why? ‘to more clearly reflect what we said in that post.’

What post? Before it gets confusing, here is the trail

1 Medium releases New Terms of Service on the 17th August (now updated, so no link to the original wording). There was outrage from writers as the new terms seem to imply further use of writers stories without compensation to writers. Medium writes a blog post to clarify the Terms of service.

2 The blog post was to allay writers concerns. Medium assured us they won’t sell our content, but we are past that. What exactly will you do with our content in the future, without paying us? I wrote a well-received response to that post that resonated with other readers.

3 It seems this and other responses struck a chord. A pause here to encourage people to speak up — always. Your voice, no matter how tiny, matters. Guess what? The terms are updated on the 19th of August ‘not revised’ but updated. Here are the new terms.

And no surprises, a new blog post is written circa 5 hours ago (20th Aug 3:00am GMT London) to explain the new terms.

Did anything change?

There is one thing I hate more that reading Terms of Service type documents, and that is reading with the suspicion that someone is trying to ‘get one over’ me. Sadly that’s what I found myself doing as I read the new terms of service.

Result! They took out the words that riled writers up — ‘without compensation to you.’

But here is the license we give them. Note the description of the license — royalty-free and fully paid jumps out. Meaning of sublicensable? I didn’t even google. I already have a headache.

“Unless otherwise agreed in writing, by submitting, posting, or displaying content on or through the Services, you grant Medium a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, and sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your content in all media formats and distribution methods now known or later developed on the Services.

They further explain that the purpose of this license is to:

• Allow Medium display content across its various surfaces (i.e., mobile, web) without the writers permission. (paraphrased from the terms of service)
• And to distribute content across their Services.

They even gave an examples in the terms and condition

For example, you post a story on Medium. It is reproduced as versions on both our website and app, and distributed to multiple places within Medium, such as the homepage or reading lists.

They explain a modification: might be that we show a snippet of your work (and not the full post) in a preview, with attribution to you.

A derivative work might be a list of top authors or quotes on Medium that uses portions of your content, again with full attribution.

So what changed?

It seemed a lot changed with the updated Terms of Service.

• They added examples
• Removed a disagreeable statement
• Explained, to some extent, why they need the license

But I am a writer in love with words, so I am left with a question. If the language was updated, but the terms were not revised. It sounds to me that nothing actually changed.

In the latest blog post, and according to Medium — the updated terms simply repeat what they said in the first place ‘to more clearly reflect what we said.’

All within Medium

Don’t get distracted or side tracked by any statements that confirm the usage of our content with Medium. Take it for granted. I have strong confidence that Medium does not intend to sell our content.

As I explained in my ‘response’ to Medium’s post

In today’s digital world, the value of a company is in the data. Companies are no longer in the business of selling data, that is so old school. Instead they are leveraging the data they have for profit. Any company worth its salt would critically look at its data and explore ways to extract the best value from the data. (Authors response to Medium blog post)

They say they will not develop our content into other materials such as films, films or television shows, but the opportunities in the digital world are a lot more than that.

Sell the data? lol. Never. It’s like Coca Cola selling its ‘secret’ recipe.

In the post, I wrote more about Digital Transformation and how companies such as Uber, Amazon and Netflix leveraged their brand, membership and platform to provide even more profitable services.

Uber started as a platform for driver and riders, now Uber covers, food and package deliveries, courier, freight and scooter rental. They took advantage of their platform and membership. Still a platform — still Uber.

Netflix started streaming movies and now commission their own programs — Netflix Originals anyone? — Still a Platform, still Netflix.

Amazon started with books, remember? Now is the worlds biggest market place, with products, videos, music, e-books, games and software. — Still a platform, Still Amazon.

(Authors response to Medium blog post)

We all want a profitable Medium

Medium has to remain profitable. Covid-19 has introduced uncertainty as the new normal, and it makes complete sense for Medium to have a long term strategy. As a Digital Expert myself, obsessed with digital platforms, data and content, I fully expect Medium to be thinking of future services. I expect nothing less from the co-founder of Twitter.

But When Medium wins, I want to win. This is why any writer would be more than happy to allow the above license if it explicitly said for marketing, advertising, distribution and display purposes only.

Perhaps that’s what it said, I do not claim to be legal-minded in any way. Does the additional blog post assure us?

I personally believe that’s what it does and I am happy with these revised terms. Call me naive, but I take people at face-value. Innocent until proven guilty and all the yarda yarda yarda…

But a nagging question remains at the back of my head.

Medium will want to remain profitable, and they will leverage my content to do this, and they can, because I have given them a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, and sublicensable license. When they do this, and in whatever format they do…

Will I get paid?

Thanks to Holly Jahangiri for encouraging me to publish a story, to get my views to a wider audience.