This is a misrepresentation of the Content Guidelines. See https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2TOZW0S... :

We will not accept content that is freely available on the web unless you are the copyright owner of that content.

Since the author is the copyright owner, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest the handbook is explicitly prohibited - Wikipedia pages could possibly be accepted, if the Wikimedia Foundation submitted them.

I think "Megan B." might be confused by the facts that Mr. Phillips is the editor of the content (as opposed to being its sole author) and by the mention of the FDL. I also think that she is using the term "exclusive publishing rights" to mean copyright ownership.

> Since the author is the copyright owner, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggest the handbook is explicitly prohibited

How is Amazon supposed to know that the author is the copyright owner? As far as I can see, when they asked about the book being on the web and for him to confirm that he had publishing rights, all he told them was that it was under a free license. I suspect that Amazon is, quite reasonably, interpreting this response as meaning that he is NOT the author, and just has the publishing rights granted by that free license.

If he is indeed the author, his response should have been: "I am the author of this work and the sole copyright owner. It is available on several web sites because I have made it available under a free license".

Did you read the line immediately after?

For example, if you received your book content from a source that allows you and others to re-distribute it, and the content is freely available on the web, we will not accept it for sale on the Kindle store.

The Wikimedia foundation does not have the copyright ownership of content on Wikipedia, the content creators do. They just own the Wikipedia trademark, domains etc.

Doesn't stop them from offering many public domain classics.

Amazon itself publishes many public domain books in the store (for free). And, anyway, they have a specific policy for public domain: https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2OHLJUR... which basically boils down to "our policy is to not publish undifferentiated versions of public domain titles where a free version is available in our store." Seems reasonable to me.

As a consumer of many public domain books on the Kindle, I find Amazon's policy good, except when they let the publishers of the paid versions game them.

For example, the "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" (http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes-ebook/dp/B0...) is a public domain book, but their free public domain version has been "under review" for months, while paid versions continue to be sold for 99 cents and up.

This is pretty crappy behavior, IMHO. I know they don't make any money from PD books, but there are a lot of Kindle owners that enjoy PD books, and scammy tactics like this detracts from their reputation.

They should probably apply a similar standard to freely licensed works.

Yeah, if that's really their policy I don't see how they can offer a single public domain work in the Kindle Store. Is there a way to file a complaint that their guidelines aren't being followed and request that content be removed from the Kindle Store? Because I would be so all over filing a complaint against every public domain work in the Kindle Store.

> Otherwise people could just publish Wikipedia pages.

Go on amazon.co.uk and and search for "source wikipedia".