License to use Wikipedia based content?

Question

A company (hearplanet) offers an mp3 audio guide as an iphone app, which is wikipedia read out by a robot-voice. As I understand all work derived from wikipedia must be released under the same license.Therefore my question: Can I tape the content and redistribute it further (with giving reference to wikipedia) or does hearplanet get some copyright for feeding the wikipedia content into their automatic reading software?

Answer 1

(Please note: I am not a lawyer, nor have I consulted one for this answer.)



Both should be true.



HearPlanet, by running it through their reading software, does get a copyright on the content they produce. Since the audio is a derivative of Wikipedia content licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), however, the audio must itself be licensed under the GFDL.



Since it's (automatically) licensed under the GFDL, you should be allowed to copy and redistribute it further—but you must credit *both Wikipedia authors and HearPlanet* for the recording.



That being said, some cross-referencing with HearPlanet's Terms of Use (< http://hearplanet.com/terms >) do cast this in a muddy light—for obvious reasons, they claim copyright on their work in general. In particular, the following sentence might be problematic: "Company Content may be derived from other sources but is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions, and other intellectual property laws." I'm not sure how rules relating to compilations would apply, but it's probably not a problem for individual recordings.



This probably doesn't mean much given the repeated noted exceptions (e.g. "other than as allowed under intellectual property laws" or "Content provided by third parties may be covered under separate license(s)"). HearPlanet doesn't own copyright on Wikipedia content, and the GFDL is quite explicit that additional restrictions can't be added to the content. HearPlanet is certainly allowed, however, based on their Terms of Use, to discontinue service to you at any time for whatever reason.



EDIT: thekohser is quite correct that, under the GFDL, it is the authors who should be credited. I have to watch for minor omissions like that. :) I've therefore updated my answer to read "Wikipedia authors" where it previously read "Wikipedia". On a related note, sometime this year Wikipedia is expected to shift to the similar but simpler Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, in which case attribution by link may be acceptable. Read about the licensing update at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update >.

Answer 2

All props to Nihiltres' answer, but I have one objection.



He says, "you must credit *both Wikipedia and HearPlanet* for the recording".



"Wikipedia" didn't author ANY of the content, so there is no need or point in crediting Wikipedia. Human beings authored the content, and they choose via User account name how they wish to be credited for their work. The GFDL asks that you...



+++

List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

+++



This aspect of the GFDL is probably the most violated aspect of any license in the history of licensing content.

Answer 3

The answer is yes, if you can follow a few simple rules. Wikipedia is about free knowledge. In this case free doesn't just mean "without cost", but free as in "free to use and modify". Businesses reuse content from Wikipedia every day. You can even make money selling content from Wikipedia, like Pedia Press. All you have to do is follow the rules in the Terms of Use. You should read the original (see my source), but in plain English it just means you should give credit to Wikipedia and the authors of the images, and allow anyone else to re-use the content in the same way. Almost all of the textual content on Wikipedia is available under those rules. However, be careful with images and other media! Some images on Wikipedia are not used with an explicit license, but instead used under the "fair use" doctrine. That may not apply to your use of the images. Click through to the image's home page to double check the licensing. If you see "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike" on that page you're okay. Wherever possible, you also should credit the author of the images. So there you have it. If you can follow those simple rules, you're more than welcome to use content from Wikipedia and its sister projects. Disclaimer: while I work for the Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit behind Wikipedia) I don't speak for them. Don't take this as legal advice. I'm not a lawyer.