Dr. Mehmet removing the clause "without compensation to you" doesn't make it sound any less better when you read those three terms, "worldwide", "fully paid" and "royalty free" together in term of a "grant."

I still believe there needs to be further clarification on these three terms as they are essential for many writers going forward with newer terms.

Because each one of them has adverse effects on the writer's work and credit.

For example, royalty free how can a writer be compensated when that is still in that term. Even if they removed without compensation to you, what type of compensation it is but how confusing it might become is when you read "fully paid."

Imagine a writer writes an essay, the essay is reproduced for a medium service. But as the clause states it is fully paid, the writer cannot "claim" that what was reproduced violates his Ip Laws, also whatever they earn from the newly reproduced material is also royalty free so the writer won't be compensated not in the money terms at least as the two terms remove the headache of paying the writer, maybe he will be credited but getting paid is a matter altogether.

Because neither can he or she file a claim, now we actually proceed to the biggest "why" i.e. "worldwide" I believe you have fair experience knowing what this term actually means and what it applies to when considering "grants" in legal terms.

How it can affect someone outside of the U.S for that matter is another question that should be clarified at all costs.

There are other important clarifications that should be discussed in brief with the writers, so that we are able to come to a clause where it actually serves some purpose towards writers altogether who mostly put all their soul into what they write.

It’s never black or white. Sometimes there’s a bit of spicy red in there as well.