Sources
83 sources in the catalog, triaged by content-reuse licence (83 done) — openmeans we may extract & store the content, restricted means link-only, unknown means no clear signal was found. Filter by area or licence.
83 of 83 sources
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
Action Network Organisers
Hub for organisations, unions and grassroots groups to come together
Action Network Organisers ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Action Network Organisers is a one-page community hub (run by "Small Axe") whose "resource library" is an embedded, crowdsourced Airtable of templates/datasets/case studies. The homepage has no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge, and no Terms/Licence/Copyright footer links, and all guessed legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /about, /legal, /license, /privacy, robots.txt, sitemap.xml) return HTTP 404; web searches surfaced no licence terms. The only relevant phrasing is "An open and crowdsourced space ... we've collectively found or created" — "open" here means open-access/viewable, not a reuse grant (no "free to use/share/adapt" or CC/OGL wording). Because content is crowdsourced and "found or created" (largely third-party), and no licence is stated, the reuse status is unknown; per-resource licences inside the Airtable/external links could not be rendered by the fetch tool and would need item-by-item checking before any extraction.
- CampaigningResource libraryOpen
Activist Handbook: The Wikipedia for activists
Open-sourced, collaborative library of guides across disciplines
Activist Handbook ↗Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
A site-wide footer block titled "You can reuse this content!" with a Creative Commons logo appears on the homepage, the About/Privacy pages, and every resource guide I sampled (organising/campaign, wellbeing/action). It states verbatim: "All our work is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, unless otherwise noted. Just make sure to give attribution to Activist Handbook and read our licence for the details." The CC link resolves to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, which grants Share+Adapt rights under attribution, non-commercial, and share-alike conditions — clearly an open reuse licence, so we may extract and store the content subject to those terms. Caveats: the licence is "unless otherwise noted," so per-item checks are prudent; guides also curate third-party "Copyright resources" (e.g., Extinction Rebellion material) that are NOT covered by Activist Handbook's licence — only AH's own content is. The dedicated /license, /terms and /copyright paths return 404; the authoritative notice lives only in the footer. Triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Activists Resource Hub
Signposting for activists, to other resource banks and websites
Activists Resource Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After an exhaustive look I found no content-reuse signal in either direction for activists-resource-hub.com. The site (created by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Social Change Lab) is a Cargo.site-hosted "edited guide" that, by its own homepage text, exists "to point you to some of the brilliant resources available for UK activists" — i.e. a signposting directory rather than an original content library. I fetched the homepage, About, Inspiration and Practical-Tools pages and read the footer: it contains only two partner logos (SCL and JRF) with no copyright notice, no licence statement, and no Creative Commons badge. Every candidate legal page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) returns HTTP 404, and the site's own sitemap.xml lists every page on the domain — none is a terms/licence/copyright page. There is no creativecommons.org link and no <link rel="license"> in the head; robots.txt only blocks SEO/audit bots and says nothing about reuse rights. A web search surfaced only background descriptions, no licence terms. Caveats: (1) there is no site-wide licence either granting or denying reuse, so under default copyright the safest assumption is that reuse is not permitted without asking — hence "unknown" rather than "open", and conservatively closer to restricted in practice; (2) most of the actual substantive material lives on the third-party sites it links to (Commons Social Change Library, Beautiful Trouble, NEON, Activist Handbook, Changemakers' Toolkit, Climate Advocacy Lab, Resource Centre), each of which carries its own separate licence that would need assessing individually; (3) the original-content footprint on this domain is very small (short category blurbs), so it may be of limited value to ingest regardless. Recommendation: link only / contact the operators (info@socialchangelab.org) before extracting and storing. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services
Membership for workers in social services
ADASS ↗Licence: All rights reserved (ADASS proprietary; no open licence)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The ADASS "Terms, Conditions & Legal" page states an explicit all-rights-reserved position: "Unless otherwise stated, the design and layout of this website and any material published (including text, graphics, logos, images and attached documents) is the property of ADASS," and "you cannot reproduce, modify, publicly display, link to or distribute the contents of this site, unless you have express permission from ADASS." Use is authorised "only for your personal, non-commercial use," which excludes extracting and storing content in an internal resource library. The homepage footer carries a plain copyright ("© Association of Directors of Adult Social Services 2026") with no Creative Commons or Open Government Licence badge, and a sampled resource page (the 2025 Spring Survey) shows only the standard site copyright with no per-item open licence. Caveat: this assesses the site-wide terms only; individual documents could in principle be released under their own licence ("unless otherwise stated"), and some embedded material may be third-party, so specific items would need per-item checking before any reuse.
- ImmigrationPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Asylum Seekers and Refugees Guide
Signposting for people who are asylum or refuge seekers in the UK
Advicenow ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved copyright; limited personal/adviser/educational copying permitted)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Advicenow's Terms & Conditions page states "All the material on this website is copyright of Advicenow or is used with the permission of the owners" and grants users no IP rights. It permits only narrow uses: copying/printing a reasonable number of portions for personal use, printing for use with clients in advice/community settings, and copying teaching resources for educational establishments. Crucially it then states: "Any other use of materials on this website including reproduction for purposes other than those noted above, distribution, republication, transmission, re-transmission, modification, or public showing whether for gain or otherwise is strictly prohibited." No Creative Commons, OGL, or open licence appears site-wide or on the asylum/refugees resource page (which carries only the standard "© Advicenow 2026" footer). Extracting and storing/republishing content in an internal resource library would fall under the prohibited "reproduction... republication... transmission" rather than the permitted exceptions, so this is restricted: link-only. Caveats: this is the site-wide stance and some material is third-party "used with permission of the owners," so even the limited permissions may not extend to all embedded content; a permission request to Advicenow would be the route to anything beyond personal/adviser/educational copying. Triage only, not legal advice.
- ImmigrationValidated professional servicesRestricted
Asylum services
Non-legal advice for people considering or claiming asylum in the UK
Migrant Help ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved style terms; reuse prohibited without written permission)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Migrant Help's site-wide Terms & Conditions explicitly prohibit reuse. Under "Limitation of liability" clause (c) it states verbatim: "The website may not be copied either in full or in part, or the contents be retained or re-utilised without express prior written permission from us. Any such copying, either in full or in part, extraction or re-utilising of our material without prior written permission is prohibited." This directly forbids extracting and storing content (the "retained or re-utilised" wording). No Creative Commons, OGL, public-domain, or "free to use/share/adapt" signal appears anywhere on the homepage, footer, privacy policy, or T&C; the only legal footer links are Privacy policy and Terms & conditions (no licence page), and the privacy policy itself names these T&C as the governing reuse document. Caveats: this is a single site-wide T&C with no per-resource open-licence override observed, and a "Third Party Information" clause notes some material is third-party, so even content reproduced with permission may carry separate restrictions. The live site returns HTTP 403 to automated fetchers (Google reCAPTCHA/Termly bot protection), so this was read via a browser-User-Agent HTTP request to the canonical pages; treat as triage, not legal advice. Permission to extract could be sought directly (info@migranthelpuk.org).
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Automic free software
Co-op that designs free software
Automic ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked autonomic.zone thoroughly: the homepage, /about/, the /gdpr/ privacy policy, /our-ethical-guidelines/, and a blog/resource post all load (HTTP 200) but carry no content licence, copyright notice, or Creative Commons badge; the standard /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, and /legal pages all 404. A raw-HTML scan of the full 81KB homepage (including its WordPress footer) found zero occurrences of "copyright", "©", "licen", "rights reserved", or "creativecommons.org", and a web search surfaced no site-specific reuse terms. The site's only freedom-related statement ("free as in freedom software wherever possible") concerns the software they build/run, not a reuse grant on their website text, so it cannot be relied on. With no explicit reuse permission and no explicit all-rights-reserved notice, this is a genuine no-signal case = unknown; note that UK default copyright still applies absent a licence, the assessment is site-wide (per-resource pages showed no individual licences either), and embedded third-party material could differ. Triage only, not legal advice; safest path is to link rather than store, or email boop@autonomic.zone to confirm.
- CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted
Breakthrough Impact
Campaign accelerator and campaign support
Breakthrough Impact ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a thorough look I found no open-reuse signal anywhere on breakthroughimpact.org: no Creative Commons badge or creativecommons.org link, no OGL/public-domain/copyleft notice, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement. The footer of the homepage, /about-us, and two actual content pages (a campaign-pathway guide and a lessons article) carry only a corporate identity line ("Breakthrough is the trading name of Impact Accelerator Ltd. Company No. 13065812") and design credits; the standard legal paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /legal, /license, /copyright) all return HTTP 404, and the sole legal document — the Privacy & Cookie policy — contains no intellectual-property, ownership, or reuse clause. Because this is original editorial content (news, campaigner spotlights, guides) published by a UK commercial entity with no licence grant, default all-rights-reserved copyright applies, so it should be treated as restricted (link-only). Caveat: this is an implicit default, not an explicit "all rights reserved" or terms page — the site simply never addresses content reuse — and the assessment is site-wide; individual pages embed third-party material (e.g. photos, campaigner quotes) whose rights differ. Triage only, not legal advice; if reuse is genuinely needed, ask info@breakthroughimpact.org.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Campaign labs
6-month program for grassroots teams
Leading Change Network ↗Licence: none found (site-wide "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page of leadingchangenetwork.org carries an explicit "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved" footer, and no open-reuse signal exists anywhere I looked: the Privacy Policy, About Us, and Membership Guidelines contain no reuse grant (only a confidentiality clause and references to "exclusive"/member resources); /terms-of-use/, /terms/, and /copyright/ all 404; and two sampled resource pages (Story Canvases, What is Organizing) show no per-item licence or Creative Commons badge, with one being "Member-only" and deferring licensing questions to a third-party author's email. A web search surfaced no licensing/reuse statement. The site's "knowledge sharing / generosity" mission language is aspirational, not a licence, so the only concrete signal is all-rights-reserved. Caveats: verdict is site-wide; some resources are member-gated or third-party-authored and may carry different terms, and this is triage rather than legal advice.
- NewsletterPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Campaigning newsletter
Campaigning newsletter
Social Movement Technologies ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved by default; footer reads "...The NewsGuild-CWA ©2026")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Investigated beyond the homepage: the footer carries only a copyright line ("Proud members of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, Local 39521 of The NewsGuild-CWA ©2026") with PRIVACY/CONTACT/DONATE links and no Creative Commons badge. Every standard legal slug (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /disclaimer) returns 404, and the full Yoast page sitemap contains no terms/licence/IP/usage page under any slug. The privacy policy, about page, two real resource pages (/free-trainings-resources/, /campaign-support/great-reads/) and one blog post show no per-item licence and no reuse grant (the only "reproduc" matches are an org name in testimonials). A web search for the site plus "content licence terms reuse" surfaced no permissive statement. With an explicit copyright notice and zero grant of reuse permission, the default is all-rights-reserved, so this is restricted (link-only). Caveat: this is a site-wide read — individual resources may embed third-party material under other terms, and SMT's separate community platform and its Commons Library collection are out of scope; triage only, not legal advice.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Campaigning toolkit
Campaigning toolkit
MND Association ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; © 2026 MND Association)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The MND Association site is all-rights-reserved. The site-wide Terms and conditions state "MND Association is the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights on the website," that users must not "reproduce, duplicate, copy or re-sell any part of the website," and (clause 5.4) "You must not publish or use for commercial purposes any part of the materials on the website without obtaining written consent from us." The footer carries only "© 2026 MND Association" with no Creative Commons badge or open-licence statement, and no /copyright page exists. Caveat: the toolkit page says "Please feel free to download and use the toolkit factsheets to support in your voluntary campaigning" — but this is a narrow, purpose-bound invitation to the charity's own volunteers, not an open licence (no adapt/redistribute rights, no licence name) and not a grant to extract and store content in a third-party library; it is overridden by the restrictive site-wide terms. Extracting and storing this content would require written consent, so link-only is the safe course.
- ImmigrationToolsUnknown
Can I vote
Tool to find out if people can vote in UK elections
Just Register / Citizens UK / Migrant Democracy Project ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Can I Vote? is a UK voter-eligibility tool run jointly by Citizens UK, the Migrant Democracy Project, and Just Register. The XML sitemap (page-sitemap.xml) enumerates the entire site as just four pages — home, /privacy-policy/, /results-vote-check/, and /faqs/ — so coverage here is effectively complete. None of these pages carries any copyright notice (no © symbol, no "all rights reserved"), Creative Commons badge, or content-reuse statement; the homepage footer links only to Privacy Policy, FAQs, About Just Register, and Donate. Candidate licence/terms paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright, /legal, /about) all return HTTP 404, the actual resource page (/faqs/, the substantive guidance content) states no per-item licence, and the only legal document on the site — the privacy policy — is silent on copyright, IP, or reuse. A targeted web search for the site's licence terms returned nothing site-specific. With no permission granted (so not "open") and yet no explicit all-rights-reserved assertion either, plus the practical reality that the content likely embeds UK electoral/government eligibility material whose rights sit elsewhere, the conservative verdict is unknown. Caveat: assessment is site-wide; no per-resource licence exists, and absence of a notice does not imply reuse permission — under UK law content is copyright by default even without a notice.
- CampaigningCase studiesUnknown
Case study library
Case study library of previous grants
Funders Collaborative Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the homepage, the case-studies listing, an individual case study (exploring-ai-for-grantmakers), the toolkit, and the about page, plus the standard legal paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) which all return HTTP 404. The site (run by the Association of Charitable Foundations) shows only org/registration details in its footer and a single off-site ACF privacy-policy link; there is no copyright/reuse statement, no Creative Commons badge or link, and no per-item licence on the case study pages, and web searches surfaced no reuse terms. The toolkit page says its templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is functional guidance for funders using fillable tools, not a reuse licence, and it does not apply to the case-study content being assessed. With no explicit open licence and no explicit all-rights-reserved/no-reuse statement, the content-reuse position for the case-study library is genuinely unclear (caveat: assessed site-wide for the case studies; the toolkit templates and any embedded third-party material could differ); UK works are copyright by default, so do not extract/store without confirming permission with ACF.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
Chayn's trauma-informed design principles
Principles for trauma-informed design across systems, products and processes
Chayn ↗Licence: Creative Commons or MIT License (variant unspecified)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Chayn's own policy page carries a section explicitly headed "Content license" stating verbatim: "All of Chayn's products and services are under a Creative Commons or MIT License. This does not cover the products of other organisations." This is an explicit free/open reuse grant, reinforced by Chayn's GitHub org (github.com/chaynhq) describing itself as "Proudly open-source" with repositories under MIT. The homepage footer shows only the charity registration ("Chayn CIO. UK Charity Number: 1196098") and there is no dedicated /terms page (it 404s), so the licence signal comes from the policies page. Caveats: (1) the statement is blanket and does not name the specific CC variant (e.g. BY vs BY-SA vs BY-NC) or which works are CC vs MIT, so per-resource attribution/non-commercial conditions may apply and should be checked per item before reuse; (2) it expressly excludes third-party content, and the resources library aggregates material from other organisations (BBC, Rights of Women, LGBT Foundation, Me Too, etc.) which is NOT covered. The whitepaper in the source URL is Chayn's own work and so falls under this open grant, but the exact CC terms are unstated. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningToolsOpen
Civic Tool Finder
Tools 'using tech for the common good'
Civic Tech Field Guide ↗Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The source URL app.civictech.guide/tools is the "Tool Finder" directory front-end (a Softr app) of the Civic Tech Field Guide; its page metadata sets og:site_name="Civic Tech Field Guide" and ties back to the civictech.guide domain. That project's site (footer + Terms of Service at civictech.guide/terms/) carries an explicit site-wide licence: a "License" heading, a Creative Commons badge linking to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, and the verbatim statement "This guide and directory are free to use, re-use, adapt, and modify for non-commercial purposes as long as you link back with attribution. (Creative Commons BY NC SA)". This is a recognised open reuse licence, so extracting and storing the curated/directory content is permitted, subject to BY-NC-SA conditions: attribution with a link back, non-commercial use only, and share-alike under the same licence. Caveats: (1) the licence covers the guide/directory content authored by CTFG, not the thousands of listed third-party tools/projects, which carry their own separate licences (content-vs-embedded distinction); (2) WebFetch returned 403 on the WordPress pages so the terms text was confirmed via direct HTTP fetch of the raw HTML rather than the rendered page; (3) the /tools app itself is JS-rendered and shows no separate in-app licence, so the verdict rests on the parent project's site-wide notice.
- CampaigningFunding opportunitiesUnknown
Collaboration opportunities hub
Opportunities for funding
Funders Collaborative Hub ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the homepage footer, the /about page, multiple terms/legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /legal, /copyright — all HTTP 404), the sitemap.xml (which confirms the site has no terms/legal/licence pages at all), several resource pages (Toolkit, the "Create a Written Agreement" template, and the Collaboration Resource Library), and ran a web search — finding no Creative Commons badge, OGL, or any content-reuse statement anywhere. The footer carries only a bare organisational copyright/registration line for the operator (Association of Charitable Foundations; Company No. 5190466, Charity No. 1105412) and a cookie notice. The site describes its toolkit as "free, practical" and says templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is permission to use the fill-in templates for your own collaboration, not a licence to extract and re-host the Hub's content — so it does not qualify as "open"; equally there is no explicit all-rights-reserved reuse prohibition, so the conservative result is unknown. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment (no per-resource licences were found either), and the resource library is an external Google Sheet linking to third-party organisations' materials whose own licences would govern separately.
- CampaigningForumsRestricted
Commnuity groups
Local and online groups for nonprofit staff
NTEN ↗Licence: none found (standard all-rights-reserved copyright: "© 2026 NTEN")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Across the target Community Groups page, the homepage, About, Privacy Policy, two resource hubs, a flagship publication, and an NTEN-authored PDF guide, every footer shows only "© 2026 NTEN" with no Creative Commons badge, no creativecommons.org link, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement. There is no site-wide Terms of Use, /license, /copyright, or /legal page (all returned 404); the only legal documents that exist are a Privacy Policy and event-specific 27NTC Sponsor Terms & Conditions, neither of which grants content reuse. No per-resource open licence appeared on the pages checked, so the conservative read is standard all-rights-reserved copyright = restricted (link-only). Caveats: the verdict covers NTEN's own content — the target page is a directory of community groups, and NTEN resource hubs link out to third-party materials (e.g., Community IT, Kairoi/GitHub, Microsoft) that carry their own, sometimes open, licences and would need to be assessed individually; the PDF guide's reference to "open-source licenses" is advice inside the template, not a licence grant on the document itself.
- CampaigningToolsOpen
Democracy Club data sets
Comprehensive election data in the UK
Democracy Club ↗Licence: CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) — applies to Democracy Club's election/candidate datasetsevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Democracy Club's own Candidates API documentation states explicitly: "The data on this site is provided under the Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licence", linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This is corroborated by the developer API terms, which require attribution ("Attribute Democracy Club, ideally with a link to our website"), and by the site's Privacy & Terms page, which says candidate data "becomes open data available to anyone." So for Democracy Club's core election/candidate data, extracting and storing it is permitted provided you credit Democracy Club. Caveats: (1) This open licence is asserted for the DATA, not the marketing/prose pages of democracyclub.org.uk itself, whose footer is a plain all-rights-reserved copyright with no reuse grant; (2) embedded third-party data is explicitly excluded — the developer portal carries "Contains OS data © Crown copyright", "Royal Mail copyright" and "National Statistics" notices, and party logos derive from the Electoral Commission, none of which fall under DC's CC BY; (3) older DC material referenced CC BY-SA (ShareAlike), so a given dataset's exact licence should be confirmed at source. The live API is in private beta requiring a key, but that is an access gate, not a reuse restriction. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningForumsRestricted
Digital Charities
Slack-based online space for non-profit workers
Digital Charities ↗Licence: none found (bare "© Digital Charities" copyright, all rights reserved)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
digitalcharities.org is a single-page sign-up portal for a ~2,500-member UK Slack community of not-for-profit digital workers; it hosts no reusable guides/toolkits/articles, only its own prose and a code-of-conduct PDF. The footer carries a bare all-rights-reserved notice ("© Digital Charities. Design adapted from a template by HTML5 UP. Bulb photo by Christian Dubovan...") with no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain mark, or any "free to use/share/adapt" grant. Every standard licence/terms page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /about, /legal, /license, /privacy) returns HTTP 404, and a web search for the site name plus "content licence terms reuse" surfaced only unrelated charity-copyright explainers from a different site (charitydigital.org.uk). I judge this restricted because the sole IP signal is an unqualified copyright with no reuse permission; caveats — the copyright covers the site itself while embedded third-party assets (HTML5 UP template, the bulb photo) carry their own separate terms, and in practice there is effectively no resource content here to extract.
- NewsletterForumsRestricted
ECF newsletter and forum
Jobs listings in campaigning space
Fairsay ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved: "© 2004 — 2022 Fairsay Ltd."; forum/newsletter under Chatham House rule)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
FairSay carries no open-reuse licence: the homepage and /job-listing/ source page have no copyright or Creative Commons notice, every standard legal page I probed (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /license, /licence, /copyright, /about, /legal) returns HTTP 404, the privacy policy is data-protection-only, and the only copyright statement found is an all-rights-reserved notice "© 2004 — 2022 Fairsay Ltd." on the archive site. The specific resource named — the eCampaigning Forum (ECF) newsletter and forum — is sign-in-gated and member-only, and is explicitly governed by the Chatham House rule ("information and opinions may not be published with attribution unless you have the person's permission"), a confidentiality regime that is the opposite of permission to extract and store. I judge this restricted: there is an active confidentiality/attribution restriction plus standard copyright and zero reuse grant. Caveat: this is a site-wide assessment; individual presentations/resources linked from ECF event pages may carry their own (often third-party) terms, and the forum's actual discussion content is access-controlled and could not be inspected directly.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
EIN Weekly Case Law Bulletin
EIN Weekly Case Law Bulletin
Electronic Immigration Network ↗Licence: All rights reserved (© Electronic Immigration Network)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
EIN's "Legal and copyright" page (/site-info) is explicit and all-rights-reserved: copyright is "owned by or licensed to the publishers, Electronic Immigration Network," and even registered users "may not otherwise download or copy, store in any medium (including any other web site), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, modify or show in public any part of the EIN website and services without the prior written consent of Electronic Immigration Network." The source bulletin itself is members-only ("This part of EIN is only available to our members so you'll need to log in to access it") and carries no per-item licence overriding these terms. The page does mention Creative Commons/Open Government Licence, but only as a carve-out for third-party content "attributed to another party" — not a grant covering EIN's own content; so individual embedded items (e.g. court judgments under OGL) could differ, but the bulletin as published by EIN may not be extracted or stored. Caveat: this is the site-wide content policy; specific third-party documents reproduced within EIN may carry their own open licences, but that requires per-item checking and does not make EIN's own bulletin reusable.
- ImmigrationValidated professional servicesRestricted
Employability support to migrants and refugees
Employability support to migrants and refugees
Refugee Action ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved — "Copyright of Refugee Action", reproduction prohibited)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Refugee Action's website terms state verbatim that all site elements "are the property of Refugee Action... is Copyright of Refugee Action" and that "Reproduction is prohibited without the prior consent of Refugee Action," warning that unauthorised use "may give [rise] to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence." The homepage and the actual Pathways to Work resource page both carry a "© 2016 Refugee Action" footer with no Creative Commons links or open-reuse statement anywhere. This is a conservative all-rights-reserved posture, so the library should link only, not extract/store content. Caveats: the assessment is site-wide; the terms also note the site may contain third-party/licensed material (e.g. photography) acknowledged separately. WebFetch returned HTTP 403 (bot protection), so pages were retrieved via a browser-user-agent HTTP GET instead; this is triage, not legal advice.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Free HR factsheets
Free HR factsheets
Roots HR ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Roots HR (Roots Human Resources CIC) is a paid HR consultancy serving the UK social sector; its "free resources" (factsheets, toolkits, webinars, bulletins, blog) are lead-generation content obtained by submitting an email form, not open content. The sitewide footer states "All Rights Reserved," and the linked Terms & Conditions PDF is explicit: clause 12.1 says Roots HR "reserves all copyright, intellectual property and any other rights" in its documents and that materials are "licensed to you for your internal use only," while clause 12.3 prohibits copying, publishing or distributing them to any third party without prior written consent. Clause 15.3 expressly names "factsheet" among the pre-packaged content covered, and clause 13.8 forbids using their content to train AI/LLMs. I found no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or any "free to share/adapt" statement on the homepage, the factsheets page, the free-resources hub, or the toolkits page; the only sense in which the factsheets are "free" is zero-cost access, not reuse rights. Caveats: the IP clauses sit in T&Cs framed around purchased consultancy services rather than a standalone website-content licence, so a strict reading leaves a small ambiguity about whether they bind a non-client downloader — but combined with the sitewide "All Rights Reserved" and internal-use-only language, extracting and storing this content is clearly not permitted; this is triage, not legal advice.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Free HR toolkits
Free HR toolkits
Roots HR ↗Licence: All Rights Reserved (no reuse licence; materials "for your internal use only")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page on rootshr.org.uk carries an "All Rights Reserved. Company Number: 6793479" footer, including the homepage, the target "Free HR toolkits" page, and the /free-toolkits index; none display a Creative Commons badge or any "free to use/share/adapt" statement, and /terms-of-use, /copyright and /license return 404. The site's Terms & Conditions PDF (linked sitewide) is decisive: clause 12.1 states "Roots HR reserves all copyright, intellectual property and any other rights... which includes, but is not limited to, generic and tailored documents... Any such materials shall be licensed to you for your internal use only," and clause 12.3 requires users "not to copy, publish or distribute any such... materials or documents to any third party without Roots HR's prior written consent" (clause 13.8 also forbids using the content to train AI). The toolkits themselves are not openly downloadable — they are gated behind an email request form and sent individually — reinforcing controlled distribution. Caveat: the T&Cs are framed around paid consultancy engagements rather than the free toolkits specifically, but the sitewide all-rights-reserved notice plus the absence of any reuse grant anywhere means extracting and storing this content is not permitted; link-only is the safe course. This is triage, not legal advice.
- HRToolsRestricted
Free payroll, accounting software for charities
Free payroll, accounting software for charities
Benchmark ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved copyright)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Both the homepage and the source resource page carry only an all-rights-reserved copyright in the footer ("© 1978 – 2026 Benchmark Software Limited") with no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement for the site's content. The one legal document, the "Terms & Conditions" page, is a software EULA (sections: Grant of Licence, Upgrades, Term and Termination, Warranties, Disclaimer, General) that declares all IP "in the Software and in the Manuals are the exclusive property of Benchmark" and forbids copying except a single backup — clearly proprietary. Note two caveats: (1) the "free software for charities" framing refers to the software being free of charge for nonprofits, NOT an open content licence — a distinction worth flagging; (2) the formal terms only expressly cover the Software/Manuals, so the website prose itself is governed by default copyright rather than an explicit reuse clause, but with no permission granted anywhere the conservative read is restricted (link-only), not unknown. /copyright, /legal, and /terms-of-use return 404.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown
From conflict to co-operation
Written guide on conflict management and resolution
People Support Co-op ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a thorough look I found no content-reuse licence in either direction. The source page (/from-conflict-to-cooperation/) and a second resource page (/chapter-2-communication/) carry no copyright, licence, or reuse text; the homepage footer states only co-op registration details (Registered Society 4779) plus Privacy and Contact links, with no copyright notice or Creative Commons badge. Standard paths /terms/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/, /legal/, /licence/ all return HTTP 404, the privacy policy covers only GDPR/cookies, and the full page sitemap (22 URLs) contains no terms/licence/copyright/legal page; a web search surfaced no licensing policy. There is no CC/OGL/public-domain or "free to use" grant, but also no explicit all-rights-reserved statement, so the signal is genuinely absent — caveat: this is a site-wide assessment, per-resource or embedded third-party terms could differ, and reuse might be grantable via their contact page.
- ImmigrationFunding opportunitiesRestricted
Grants
List of grants provided by the Foundation
Rayne Foundation ↗Licence: All rights reserved (site content); CC BY 4.0 applies only to the separate awarded-grants datasetevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The site-wide footer on the homepage, the source funding page, and the privacy page all carry the verbatim notice "© 2026 The Rayne Foundation. ... All rights reserved." with no open-reuse grant. Every standard licence/terms path (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /copyright, /legal) returns HTTP 404, and the only footer links (Privacy, Cookies) grant no content-reuse rights. The single Creative Commons BY 4.0 licence found on the site is explicitly scoped to the awarded-grants dataset ("our awarded grants are available to view... This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License"), i.e. the 360Giving open data — not the editorial funding-guidance content of the source page. Caveat: this verdict is for the editorial/page content; the grants data is separately open under CC BY 4.0, and the assessment reflects site-wide notices since no per-resource licence was found on the funding pages.
- CampaigningFunding opportunitiesRestricted
Grassroots Grants
Grants for grassroots organisations
Groundwork ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; personal print/download only, no adaptation)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The site (homepage, the Grassroots Grants resource page, and the Terms of Use) carries a standard charity copyright notice ("© Groundwork UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (No. 291558)") and no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or "free to share/adapt" statement anywhere — keyword scans for "creativecommons", "licen", and "open government" returned zero matches on all three pages. The Terms of Use "Intellectual Property Rights" section permits only printing/downloading for reference, on condition that the copyright notice travels with any copy, that "You do not modify or change in any way the information or materials," and that Groundwork "reserves the right to withdraw permission to use materials on this website without notice." That is all-rights-reserved with a narrow personal-use carve-out — it does not authorise extracting, adapting, and re-storing content in a separate library, so I judge it restricted (link-only). Caveat: Grassroots Grants is delivered via the Government's "Know Your Neighbourhood" fund, so individual downloadable documents could carry separate terms (e.g. OGL), and this assessment covers the site's own page content, not embedded third-party material; it is triage, not legal advice. (The homepage/resource pages return HTTP 403 to automated fetchers; verbatim text was obtained via a browser user-agent request, consistent with the indexed Terms of Use page.)
- HRTemplatesRestricted
Grievance policy templates
Grievance policy templates
CharlieHR ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved — proprietary Terms & Conditions)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
CharlieHR's footer carries a plain all-rights-reserved notice ("© CharlieHR 2026. Charlie OS Limited...") with no Creative Commons badge, and its Terms (https://www.charliehr.com/terms) explicitly reserve all rights: "All rights not expressly granted to the Client are reserved," CharlieHR owns "all right, title and interest... in and to... the Content," users get only a "non-exclusive, limited, personal, revocable, non-transferable" licence "solely for the Client's own internal business purposes," and "the Client shall not... distribute or otherwise commercially exploit or make available to any third party the Service or the Content... modify or make derivative works... or 'frame' or 'mirror' any Content on any other server." Extracting and storing the article/template in a resource library is exactly the redistribution/mirroring these clauses forbid, so this is restricted (link-only). Caveat: the blog article does invite readers to "download, customise and use" / "edit and adapt" that one grievance-policy template for their own team — but this is a narrow, end-user, internal-use permission for the template itself, not a site-wide grant to republish or store CharlieHR's content elsewhere; templates may also contain embedded third-party material, and no /license or /legal page exists (the latter 404s) to broaden the grant.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
Groups newsletter
Group-specific updates to local activists
Friends of the Earth ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved with a conditional non-commercial informational-use permission; no open licence)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The source is Friends of the Earth UK (forms.friendsoftheearth.uk -> main site friendsoftheearth.uk). The homepage footer shows "(c) Friends of the Earth Limited" and links to a dedicated copyright page. That page (/about-us/copyright, also served at /about/copyright) states the copyright in the website is owned by Friends of the Earth Limited and that content may not be reproduced, stored, or retransmitted without prior written permission, except under three cumulative conditions: use is informational only, non-commercial only, and the copyright notice is retained. This is a conditional permission, not an open licence: no Creative Commons badge/link, OGL, public-domain dedication, or "free to share/adapt" wording appears anywhere on the homepage, copyright page, or resource pages (e.g. /climate items carry only the same site-wide notice), and a targeted web search surfaced only the same FoE copyright page plus unrelated generic CC reference pages. I judge this restricted because there is no reuse/adaptation grant for storing content in a library, and any reproduction is gated on conditions with all other rights reserved. Caveats: the notice is site-wide (individual resources could in principle differ, though none observed), and it explicitly does NOT cover embedded images, many of which are third-party and "not ours to give"; this is triage, not legal advice.
- HRTemplatesRestricted
HR templates
HR templates
Croner ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Across the homepage, the /free-downloads/ page, the privacy policy, and two actual template pages (social-media-policy-template, return-to-work-interview-form), the only IP statement is the proprietary copyright line "© 2026 Croner is a trading name of Croner Limited registered in England & Wales No. 10878116" — no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or open-reuse statement anywhere. There is no working terms-of-use/licence page: /terms-of-use/, /terms/, /legal/, /disclaimer/ all 404, /copyright/ returns 410 Gone, and /terms-and-conditions/ silently resolves to the homepage with no terms content. The only usage signal is "Download and use these templates for your business," a narrow permission to use templates within one's own business — not a grant to extract, store, and redistribute content in a third-party internal library; a web search also showed sibling site croner.com reserving all rights and granting only a non-transferable personal licence. Caveat: this is a site-wide assessment from front-end pages and search; individual downloaded files were not opened and could in principle carry their own (likely more restrictive) terms, so this is conservative triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Unknown
Healing Justice LDN newsletter
Newsletter on community healing and somatic practices
Healing Justice LDN ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The source link is a Mailchimp newsletter signup for Healing Justice LDN, whose actual site is healingjusticeldn.org. I checked the homepage, About, Privacy Policy, and Accessibility Disclaimer, plus two actual resource pages (methodology/anchoring-resilience and methodology/community-agreements), and probed /terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal (all HTTP 404). The footer site-wide contains only Accessibility Disclaimer, Donate, Newsletter, and Privacy Policy links — no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge, and no terms-of-use page. A raw-HTML grep of the homepage for copyright/(c)/Creative Commons/all-rights-reserved/licence/terms/reuse strings returned nothing, and web searches surfaced no licensing declaration. Verdict is unknown (conservative): there is no licence granting reuse (so not open) and no explicit all-rights-reserved/terms statement either (so not a documented restricted). Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment as of 2026-06-01; individual resources (e.g. the Resilience Toolkit, or downloadable PDFs not surfaced here) and embedded third-party quotes may carry their own terms, and UK works are protected by copyright by default absent an explicit licence — so reuse cannot be assumed. Triage only, not legal advice; recommend emailing info@healingjusticeldn.org before extracting/storing content.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
How to' guides
Network of anti-oppressive organizers from around the world that share their skills
Blueprints for Change ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Thorough pass beyond the homepage: the homepage footer carries no copyright notice, no "all rights reserved," and no Creative Commons badge/link (verified in both rendered text and raw HTML), and the standard legal pages all return HTTP 404 (/terms, /license, /privacy; no /copyright or /legal in nav). The /about and /guides archive carry no licence text. The only reuse signal anywhere on the site appears on individual guide pages (e.g. organizing-against-far-right, activist-digital-security) and the manual: guides "can be downloaded and shared freely among progressives" / "offered as a free download." That is a real permission hint but informal, audience-qualified ("among progressives"), and limited to downloading/redistribution — it is not a recognised open licence (no CC/OGL/public-domain/copyleft) and gives no clear permission to extract, store, or adapt content for an internal library. With no formal site-wide terms and a web search turning up nothing more, this is too weak and ambiguous to call "open" yet not all-rights-reserved, so I judge it unknown. Caveat: this is site-wide triage; a specific guide could embed third-party content under different terms, and the permissive phrasing means a direct request to the org could plausibly yield reuse permission.
- ImmigrationValidated professional servicesRestricted
Kompassi
Digital tool that connects services from a variety of service providers that refugees, people seeking asylum and migrants can be signposted to or directly referred to
Kompassi ↗Licence: All rights reserved (© The Developer Society 2024)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Kompasi (kompasi.org) is a UK service directory for refugees/asylum seekers/migrants run by The Developer Society and partners. Its Privacy Notice & T&Cs page (/privacy-policy) states "We own copyrights on this site and in material published on it... All our rights are reserved. © The Developer Society 2024," permits linking only conditionally ("provided you do so in a way that is fair and legal"), explicitly prohibits iframe/embedding, and directs any other use to a permission request at data@dev.ngo. The /about page independently shows "© 2024 All rights reserved." No Creative Commons, OGL, public-domain, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement was found anywhere, and despite "The Data Place" being listed as a data-governance partner there is no open-data licence published. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment of editorial content; the underlying service listings are factual data that may have separate provenance, and the explicit instruction to request permission means reuse may be obtainable by contacting them — but absent that, content must be link-only, not extracted/stored.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Library
Resource library
Campaign Lab ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
A thorough look (homepage, the Library page, three individual resource pages, our-story, get-involved, privacy policy, and the /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright, /legal paths which all return HTTP 404) found no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge/link, no terms-of-use, and no explicit reuse grant anywhere on the site, and web searches surfaced no licence terms either. The only reuse-adjacent signal is the informal Library motto "Take what you need. Share what you can.", which is an aspirational sentiment rather than a defined licence — it does not state whether content may be copied, stored, or adapted, nor under what conditions, so it is not enough to classify the site as open. Equally there is no all-rights-reserved statement to call it firmly restricted, so the conservative result is unknown. Caveats: (1) any future licence would likely be site-wide and would need confirming directly with Campaign Lab; (2) many Library items are embedded third-party content (Google Docs/Drive), so even a site licence would not cover that material; (3) a search snippet suggested some Library content sits behind a login/sign-up, which weighs against treating it as freely reusable.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
Link in bio
A newsletter about working in social media (best practices, case studies, trend analysis)
Rachel Karten ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved — "© 2026 Rachel Karten")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
"Link in Bio" (milkkarten.net) is Rachel Karten's personal Substack newsletter on social-media marketing. The homepage, About page, and an actual article page all carry only a standard "© 2026 Rachel Karten" copyright notice with no Creative Commons badge, no public-domain/OGL mark, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement at either site or per-post level. Substack's ToS confirms writers retain full ownership and that public posts grant other users only a licence to access/use the post "as permitted by the functionality of Substack" (in-platform reading and sharing), not a general right for a third party to extract, store, and republish the content elsewhere; a confirming web search surfaced no separate reuse-permission statement. Verdict is therefore restricted (link-only) — caveat: this is the site-wide signal, and an individual post could differ if the author ever adds an explicit licence to it.
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Mapped
Tool for organisers and activists to locate their people by constituency and more
Common Knowledge ↗Licence: none found (site content); software codebase is GNU AGPL v3evidence ↗Why this verdict?
"Mapped" is a browser-based data-enrichment / campaign-mapping tool by Common Knowledge (a UK worker co-op), not a content/resource library, so there are no guides, policies, or toolkits to extract; the site's "content" is essentially the app UI and marketing copy. I checked the homepage footer, the parent org site (commonknowledge.coop), and likely licence pages (/terms, /license, /privacy all 404) and found no Creative Commons badge, terms-of-use, or content-reuse statement; only a Privacy Policy exists and it carries no IP/reuse terms. The one explicit licence is for the software codebase, which is open-sourced on GitHub under GNU AGPL v3 (confirmed in LICENSE.txt and stated on the successor site mapped.tools), but AGPL governs the code, not the website's text/visual content or any data. Caveat: open-source code does not equal an open-content licence, and the AGPL would also impose share-alike/network-copyleft obligations if the code itself were reused; for reusing site content specifically there is genuinely no signal, so this is conservatively unknown rather than open.
- CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted
Membership
Organisers network for training, events and solidarity
Act Build Change ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page checked points to all-rights-reserved with no reuse licence. The site-wide footer (homepage, membership page, and a sampled resource article) reads: "Copyright (c) 2025 Act Build Change Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our permission." The Terms of Use state all content "is owned and controlled by us, and is protected by copyright" and explicitly prohibit reuse ("You are not permitted to copy, record, share or distribute any information... unless stated otherwise"), allowing only attribution-gated quotation of extracts with written permission. No Creative Commons links, badges, or any "free to use/share/adapt" language appears anywhere, and a web search surfaced none. Caveats: this is a site-wide judgement (terms say "unless stated otherwise," so an individual toolkit could in principle carry its own licence, though none was found); the membership area is paywalled and could not be inspected; permission to quote credited extracts is not a licence to extract and store content. Triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted
Membership portal
Membership hub for workers and organisations to share resources and knowledge
MyCommunity ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved — "©MyCommunity 2026")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The site's Terms and Conditions explicitly assert all-rights-reserved copyright and prohibit reuse: "This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us... Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice," adding that "Unauthorised use of this website may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence." The footer of the homepage, about-us page, and actual content/topic pages (/governance, /funding) shows only "©MyCommunity 2026" with no Creative Commons badge, Open Government Licence, public-domain, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement; a /copyright page does not exist (404) and a web search surfaced no open-licence signal. Verdict is therefore restricted: content may NOT be extracted and stored — link only. Caveats: the prohibition is site-wide and I found no per-resource licence that overrides it; however, individual guides credit and link to third-party originators (e.g. Co-operatives UK, Power to Change) whose upstream source material may carry its own, possibly more permissive, licence and would need separate assessment. This is triage, not legal advice.
- ImmigrationPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
Migrant Digital Justice Toolkit
Migrant Digital Justice Toolkit
Open Rights Group ↗Licence: Custom "Free to reuse except where stated" statement (no formal/named licence)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page I checked on migranttoolkit.uk carries the same footer notice: "©. Free to reuse except where stated." This explicit free-to-reuse permission appears site-wide - on the homepage, on section pages (what-are-digital-rights, how-it-works), and on an actual resource page (the MRN Know Your Rights guide) - so it is the operative content-reuse signal for the site, which is run by the Open Rights Group. It is a custom statement, not a named/formal licence: there is no Creative Commons badge or link anywhere, and dedicated /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, and /copyright pages all return HTTP 404. Caveat: the licence is owner-stated and explicitly conditional ("except where stated"), so individual resources - especially third-party/embedded materials reproduced from other organisations (e.g. JCWI, Migrants' Rights Network), interview transcripts, and government legislation excerpts - may carry their own restrictions or be reserved; each item should be checked for a per-resource notice before extraction, and original authorship credited. This is triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open
MobLab Dispatch
Round-up of stories, resources, opportunities and discussions about changemaking
Mobilisation Lab ↗Licence: CC BY 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
MobLab / MobilisationLab states a site-wide open licence in its footer: "Except where noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. I confirmed this identical notice on the homepage, the newsletters source page, the About page, and a sampled resource page (Mobilisation Integration Toolkit), and verified the link resolves to the genuine CC BY 4.0 deed (share + adapt, even commercially, with attribution). Extraction and storage are permitted with attribution. Two caveats: (1) the "except where noted" clause means individual resources can carry a different licence, so each stored item should be checked for an overriding per-resource note before reuse; (2) embedded third-party material (images, quoted content) may not be covered by the site's CC BY licence.
- CampaigningForumsRestricted
Open Collective Documentation
Open-sourced ecosystem where Collectives can connect with hosts that help them get set up, manage their administration, and raise and pay money securely and transparently
Open Collective ↗Licence: none found (documentation text); CC BY-SA 4.0 applies only to embedded button-design assetsevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The documentation prose carries no open reuse licence. The GitBook site is built from the public repo github.com/opencollective/documentation, but that repo has no licence (GitHub API returns license: null, the /license endpoint 404s, no LICENSE/COPYING file exists, and the README states nothing about reuse) — so under default copyright it is all-rights-reserved. The main platform Terms of Service (opencollective.com/tos) reinforces this, granting users only a "limited, nonexclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license" for personal use and prohibiting copying/commercial use/derivatives of platform content. The one open signal is per-resource and narrow: a single page states the button DESIGNS are licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, but that covers embedded assets, not the documentation text, and the logo/trademark are explicitly excluded. Caveat: this is a site-wide vs per-resource and content vs embedded-asset distinction — extracting/storing the documentation text is not permitted, though individual reusable assets (buttons) and the open-source code are separately licensed. Triage only, not legal advice.
- HRResource libraryOpen
Policy library
Policy library
RadHR ↗Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
RadHR's site-wide footer carries the notice "Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 (c) 2026 RadHR" with a real hyperlink to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ (verified directly in the homepage HTML via curl, not just rendered text), and the dedicated /terms/ page restates and links the same licence. The site self-describes as "a free, open & collaborative collection of policies & processes," consistent with CC BY-SA 4.0, which permits extracting, storing, and adapting content provided attribution is given and derivatives are shared under the same licence. Caveat: the licence appears site-wide rather than per-resource, and the about page notes most policies are contributed by 40+ community groups; embedded third-party material could carry different terms, so attribution + ShareAlike obligations and spot-checks on individual items are advisable.
- HRValidated professional servicesUnknown
Pro bono services and free resources for charities
Pro bono services and free resources for charities
Cranfield Trust ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a thorough crawl I found no content-reuse licence anywhere on cranfieldtrust.org. The site-wide footer (identical across the homepage, source page, privacy and key-policies pages) shows only charity/company registration numbers plus Privacy, Accessibility, and Fundraising Regulator links — there is no Terms of Use or Copyright link, and every standard URL (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about-us, /sitemap.xml) returns 404. The privacy policy has no IP clause; the only adjacent statement is an accuracy disclaimer on /pages/resources, not a licence; and no Creative Commons badge appears on the index, category, or individual resource pages. I judged this "unknown" rather than "restricted" because there is genuine silence (no reuse permission, but also no explicit all-rights-reserved/no-reuse statement) — UK works default to all-rights-reserved copyright by law, so the safe posture is link-only, not extract-and-store. Caveats: this is site-wide silence and could be overridden per resource; importantly many "resources" are curated links to third-party content (VWV, Third Sector, NCVO, ACAS, CIPD, gov.uk, S3-hosted PDFs) carrying their own copyright; and the Creative Commons hits from web search were for Cranfield University, a different institution, not this charity.
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
Progressive Exchange
Online community to share information about online strategies, tactics and tools
Progressive Exchange ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Progressive Exchange (progressiveexchange.org) is a thin WordPress landing page whose sitemap lists only four pages (home, /about/, /contact/, and a default "hello-world" news post); its real activity is a members-only Google Group, not published web content. I read the full page HTML including the footer on two pages: it contains only a logo and an "About" link, with no copyright notice, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons or other licence badge/link. All standard licence pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about, /privacy) return HTTP 404, and there are no resource/guide/toolkit pages to carry per-item licences. A web search surfaced a CC BY-NC-SA notice, but it belongs to a different, unrelated organisation (Australia's "the change agency"), not this site — so there is no licence signal either way. Caveat: this is site-wide triage; the substantive content actually lives in the gated Google Group, which was not assessable and may carry its own terms.
- ImmigrationResource libraryRestricted
Publications and Resources (Immigration)
Publications and Resources (Immigration)
Public Law Project ↗Licence: All rights reserved — "© 2026 Public Law Project" (no reuse licence found)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page I checked carries a plain copyright assertion ("© 2026 Public Law Project") with no reuse grant: the homepage footer, the "Legal" disclaimer page (/legal-disclaim/), the privacy and accessibility pages, and two actual resource pages (the "Lessons to learn" asylum-children report and the "Remote immigration and asylum advice" report) all show only the © notice — no Creative Commons badge/link, no Open Government Licence, no public-domain or "free to share/adapt" statement, site-wide or per-item. Dedicated /terms/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/ and /about/ URLs return HTTP 404, and a web search surfaced no reuse terms; the resources hub adds only a liability disclaimer ("PLP accept no responsibility for the contents of these items"), not a permission. The signal is clear and consistent (copyright asserted, no permission given), so this is restricted rather than unknown — content may be linked to but not extracted/stored without PLP's permission. Caveat: this reflects PLP's own posture; some publications are joint/co-branded briefings and may embed third-party material with separate terms, so per-document checks remain prudent.
- ImmigrationToolsRestricted
Purpose-driven language services
Purpose-driven language services
Tarjimly ↗Licence: All rights reserved (proprietary Terms of Use)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Tarjimly's Terms of Use (https://www.tarjimly.org/terms) are explicit and all-rights-reserved. Section 7 states "The Service, and the media and materials contained in the Service, including all intellectual property rights in the Service, are the sole and exclusive property of Tarjimly and its licensors," and Section 5.1 forbids users to "copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, display, perform, transmit, stream or broadcast any part of the Service without prior written authorization," with only a "limited license" granted and "no other rights, licenses, or immunities" implied. I found no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or "free to share/adapt" statement anywhere I checked (homepage footer, Terms, About/Our Purpose page) and a web search surfaced no open-licence signal. Caveat: this is the site-wide content licence; individual embedded third-party materials are out of scope, and the site's footer notes Tarjimly is now part of CLEAR Global, so terms could change — but as it stands, extracting and storing its content is not permitted.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Relationships Resource Hub
Repository of blogs, podcasts, books, frameworks, academic articles and more
Relationships Project ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Thorough investigation found no content-reuse licence anywhere on relationshipsproject.org. The homepage and the /resource-repository page carry only a charity-host notice ("THE RELATIONSHIPS PROJECT IS HOSTED BY GRAPEVINE (COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE) - REGISTERED CHARITY: 1107969") with no copyright line, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons badge. The only legal page that exists is a privacy policy (covers personal data only); /terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /license, /legal, /about(/our-work) yield nothing relevant and most return HTTP 404. A search hit's phrase "All of our work is open and everyone is welcome to get involved" (on /about/our-work/) refers to open participation/collaboration, not a content licence. Raw-HTML grep surfaced only third-party software licences for bundled front-end code (animate.css "Copyright (c) 2015 Daniel Eden", GPL v2, MIT) — these govern the site's code, not its content. Two important caveats: (1) the "Resource Repository" is largely a curated directory of links to THIRD-PARTY content (SSIR, The Guardian, Substack, Medium, Psychology Today, etc.), each governed by its own publisher's terms, not by this site — so extracting/storing those items is a separate per-source question; (2) for the Relationships Project's OWN materials (e.g. Bridge Builder's Handbook, Relationships Heatmap) no licence is stated either. With no explicit reuse grant, default copyright applies, but because there is genuinely no clear signal the conservative verdict is unknown rather than restricted; reuse would require confirming with hello@relationshipsproject.org. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resource center
Resource center
Leading Change Network ↗Licence: Site-wide: "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved" (no site-wide open licence). Per-item exceptions exist, e.g. one resource tagged "Creative Commonsevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Attribution-ShareAlike" (CC BY-SA). - The site-wide posture is all-rights-reserved: the footer on the homepage, resource-center, privacy-policy and about pages reads "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved", there is no Creative Commons badge site-wide, and dedicated /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright and /legal pages all return HTTP 404 (the privacy policy is silent on content reuse). So there is no blanket permission to extract and store the library — treat it as restricted. However, licensing is actually per-resource: detail pages carry a structured "License" field, and these are inconsistent. "Story, Strategy, Structure" declares "Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike" (open, though access is member-only), whereas "Movement Memo", "Story Canvases" and "What is Organizing?" have no licence field and several are third-party content (Climate Justice Organizing HUB, Commons Social Change Library, New Organizing Institute, individual authors who ask to be contacted directly). Caveats: (1) judge reuse item-by-item, not site-wide — individual items bearing an explicit open licence may be extractable; (2) the CC label is taken verbatim from the page's own metadata field but I could not confirm a linked creativecommons.org deed, so the exact CC version is unverified; (3) much content is embedded/third-party and the LCN footer may not govern it. This is triage, not legal advice.
- ImmigrationResource libraryRestricted
Resource library
Resource library
Migrant Help ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved Terms & Conditions)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Migrant Help's Terms & Conditions contain an explicit intellectual-property clause that prohibits exactly the action in question: "The website may not be copied either in full or in part, or the contents be retained or re-utilised without express prior written permission from us. Any such copying, either in full or in part, extraction or re-utilising of our material without prior written permission is prohibited." I checked the homepage, the resources category page, two actual resource pages (the asylum-resources listing and the "What is an Aspen card?" FAQ), the privacy policy, and a backstop web search; none carried a Creative Commons badge, an open/OGL/public-domain notice, or any per-resource reuse permission that would override the site-wide terms. Verdict is restricted: content may NOT be extracted and stored — link-only unless written permission is obtained. Caveats: the assessment is site-wide (no exceptions were found, but Migrant Help may grant permission on request); and any third-party material embedded in their resources could carry separate terms. The live footer copyright line is JavaScript-rendered and not in the raw HTML, but it does not change the verdict, which rests on the Terms & Conditions. This is triage, not legal advice.
- ImmigrationResource libraryRestricted
Resource library
Resource library
Electronic Immigration Network ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
EIN's official "Legal and copyright" page (https://www.ein.org.uk/site-info) reserves all rights: copyright is "owned by or licensed to" EIN, registered users may access content "solely for their own professional use," and users may not "download or copy, store in any medium (including any other web site), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, modify or show in public any part of the EIN website and services without the prior written consent of Electronic Immigration Network," ending with "All rights are hereby reserved by EIN." This is all-rights-reserved with no blanket reuse permission, so extracting and storing its content is not permitted. Caveats: (1) the page acknowledges that some individual items may be attributed to third parties and "available under licences such as Creative Commons or the Open Government Licence" — so specific resources (e.g. government legislation/reports) could carry their own open licence and would need per-item checking; (2) much of the substantive library (case law, country reports) sits behind a members' subscription. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resource library
Library with content spanning HR, Marketing, Business Planning, DEI, etc
Locality: the power of community ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Locality's Terms & Conditions (https://locality.org.uk/terms-and-conditions) explicitly govern content reuse and are restrictive: "This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us... Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions," and "Unauthorised use of this website may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence." No reuse grant, "free to use/share/adapt" statement, or Creative Commons badge/link appears anywhere I looked: the homepage and /resources footers (only charity/company registration text), the privacy policy (personal-data only), or three individual resource pages (Energy efficiency checklist, Pathways to Good Work toolkit page, and the toolkit PDF itself) - none carried a per-item open licence. A targeted web search surfaced no Locality-specific licence. This is a default all-rights-reserved posture with reproduction prohibited, so I assess it as restricted (link-only). Caveats: the referenced "copyright notice" itself was not separately published/exposed, so the precise scope of permitted exceptions is undefined; this is a site-wide read and a specific resource could in principle carry its own licence (none seen); and many downloadable PDFs embed third-party material whose rights differ. Triage only, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resource library
Compilation of resources for organising, communicating and navigating movement building
NEON ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; "© 2026 NEON")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
NEON's site-wide Terms of Use are explicitly all-rights-reserved: "all the intellectual property rights, including copyrights... in the Site and its content are owned by NEON or NEON's suppliers" and "no part of the Site may be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means," granting only "limited access rights" and prohibiting commercial exploitation. The homepage and /resources footers show only "© 2026 NEON" with no Creative Commons badge or reuse statement, and a web search surfaced no separate open-licensing policy. Caveats: the /resources page is JavaScript-rendered so I could not open individual toolkit/PDF detail pages, which could in theory carry their own per-item licence (none observed); embedded third-party content would have separate terms. This is triage, not legal advice — but the explicit prohibition on copying/downloading means we should link only, not extract and store.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resources
Compilation of tools, templates and resources for civil society
The Social Change Nest ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved: "© 2017 – 2025 The Social Change Nest CIC")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page on thesocialchangenest.org (homepage, /resources/, and the terms/terms-of-use/copyright/privacy/about pages) carries only a standard all-rights-reserved notice — "© 2017 – 2025 The Social Change Nest CIC Company No: 12611737" — with no Creative Commons badge, no licence/terms-of-service page in the footer nav, and no "free to use/share/adapt" grant. A targeted web search returned nothing specific to the site's licensing. Under the conservative rule, copyright with no stated reuse permission = restricted, so the Nest's own content should be link-only, not extracted and stored. Major caveat: the /resources/ page is mostly a curated hub linking to OTHER domains (thesocialchangeagency.org canvases, radhr.org, relationshipsproject.org, opencollective, cobudget, breakthroughimpact.org, etc.); each of those destinations carries its own licence and must be assessed separately — this verdict covers only content authored/hosted by thesocialchangenest.org itself. (Direct curl checks returned 403 from a bot-blocking WAF, so HTTP status could not confirm page existence; the browser-rendered fetches are the reliable signal and showed no reuse terms.)
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Resources and case studies
Case studies from organisations which are cobudgeting
Cobudget ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
No content-reuse licence is stated anywhere I could verify. The footer on every page only says "You are using Cobudget. Source code available online" (linking to GitHub) with links to Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions, but carries no copyright notice or Creative Commons badge. The /terms-and-conditions and /about pages are client-side rendered and returned only the page shell across direct, repeat, and text-proxy fetches, so I could not read any IP/content clause to cite either way. Two actual resource pages (the "5 steps" guide and the Enspiral case study) show author attribution ("By Francesca Pick") and "SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE" links to external Medium/Greaterthan publications, but no per-item licence, copyright line, or reuse permission. Crucially, the GitHub repo's AGPL-3.0-or-later licence governs the software code only, not the website's editorial content, so it is not an open-content signal. Caveats: the unreadable T&C body may contain an all-rights-reserved or IP clause I could not access; and the resources include third-party republished content that would carry its own separate rights regardless of any site-wide terms. Triage only, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resources: key questions and drivers of social change
Theoretical guide on the key questions and drivers of social change
The Social Change Agency ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved copyright; "Copyright © 2026 The Social Change Agency Limited")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page of thesocialchangeagency.org (homepage, /resources/, and the individual resource pages I opened: Movement Building Canvas, Lost Voices toolkit, Power Mapping Canvas) carries only a generic footer notice — "Copyright © 2026. This Website is owned and operated by The Social Change Agency Limited..." — with no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain dedication, or any "free to use/share/adapt" statement. Candidate licence pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /license, /licence) all return HTTP 404; only a Privacy policy and About page exist, and the privacy policy's sole "licence" mention is "driving licence" as identity proof, with no content-reuse clause. A web search surfaced CC-licensed toolkits only from differently-named organisations (notably thechangeagency.org, CC BY-NC-SA) — not from this site — so they must not be conflated. Being conservative, default all-rights-reserved copyright applies and there is no permission to extract and store; link-only is the safe posture. Caveats: assessment is site-wide (toolkits are gated behind HubSpot download forms not completed, so a downloaded PDF could in theory carry its own terms); this is triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open
Right to Remain (newsletter)
Immigration and asylum news, information, updates, events and campaigns
Right to Remain ↗Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Right to Remain's dedicated Permissions page states verbatim: "Right to Remain's work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License," granting freedom to copy, share and adapt the material for non-commercial purposes with attribution, and links to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The homepage/newsletter footers carry no inline licence but link to this Permissions page. The identical CC BY-NC 4.0 notice also appears on the actual Toolkit resource page, confirming the licence applies both site-wide and per-resource. Caveat: it is a NonCommercial licence (reuse only for non-commercial purposes, attribution required), and the licence text notes no explicit carve-outs, though embedded third-party material (e.g. images credited to others) could carry separate terms.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
Safeguarding guidance
Safeguarding guidance
NCVO ↗Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
NCVO's copyright page is explicit: "We want the information on our website to be used widely, so we've chosen to make it available under a Creative Commons license" — specifically the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (links to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), stating "you can use, adapt and re-publish content on this website however you like" with credit and share-alike, but "can't make commercial use." This is a recognised open licence, so extracting and storing the safeguarding guidance is permitted. The terms-and-conditions page's "reproduction is prohibited" clause does not conflict: it explicitly defers to the copyright notice ("which forms part of these terms and conditions") and scopes its prohibition to the site's design/look-and-feel/graphics and to paid event materials, not the guidance text. The safeguarding page itself is original NCVO content ("free to all" access, no third-party attributions). Caveats: the NonCommercial and ShareAlike conditions bind — stored copies need attribution and the same licence and cannot be used for commercial advantage; the licence covers NCVO content but not site branding/graphics or event materials, and any page embedding third-party material could carry different terms.
- ImmigrationToolsRestricted
Services directory
Map of place-based migration-related services across the UK
Migrant and Refugee Children’s Legal Unit (MiCLU) ↗Licence: All Rights Reserved (no reuse licence found)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page I checked on miclu.org (the Migrant & Refugee Children's Legal Unit) carries an explicit site-wide footer: "Copyright 2026 Migrant & Refugee Children's Legal Unit | All Rights Reserved" — including the homepage, About, Resources, Resources & Publications, Briefings & Responses, and an individual report page (Into the Arms of Traffickers). I probed the common licence/terms URLs (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy, /sitemap) and all returned HTTP 404, and a web search for the site's reuse/licence terms surfaced nothing beyond the "All Rights Reserved" footers. There are no Creative Commons badges or creativecommons.org links anywhere, and no per-resource "free to share/reproduce" statement, so extracting and storing their content is not permitted without seeking direct permission. Caveats: this triage covers the HTML pages — the downloadable report PDFs could carry their own per-document terms (not inspected), and any embedded third-party material would have separate rights.
- ImmigrationValidated professional servicesUnknown
Services menu
Services by a migrant-led design agency
Migrants in Culture ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a full investigation there is no content-reuse signal of any kind on migrantsinculture.com (a Squarespace-hosted UK arts/activism site). The homepage footer has no copyright notice, Creative Commons badge, or licence text; every standard legal page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /privacy, /legal, /copyright, /about) returns 404, and the sitemap confirms no terms/legal page exists anywhere. The actual content-bearing pages (/resources, /saturdayschoolresources, /posterbank, /research-and-strategic-projects) carry no per-item licence, CC link, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement, and a raw-HTML check found no creativecommons.org link (the only "license" string is Squarespace's internal data-licensed-asset-preview attribute, unrelated to reuse). A web search surfaced no site-specific reuse terms. Because there is neither an open-licence grant nor an explicit all-rights-reserved notice, the result is genuinely unknown. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment with no per-resource grants found; many listed resources are third-party (e.g. the SKNB workbook hosted at sknb.org, Design Justice Network zines, named-author books), whose rights are separate; and under UK law content is copyright by default absent any licence, so extraction/storage should not be assumed permitted without contacting hello@migrantsinculture.com. Triage only, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open
Skills for Care
Round-up of sector news, trainings, etc
Skills for Care ↗Licence: Custom permissive terms: "freely reproduced with acknowledgment for education and training purposes" (non-commercial, attribution required) — not a named licenceevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The requested URL (id.skillsforcare.org.uk) 301-redirects to connect.skillsforcare.org.uk, a login gateway whose footer carries the site-wide notice "© Skills for Care 2026. All rights reserved." Taken alone that reads restricted, but the linked Terms and conditions contain an explicit reuse grant, which I verified verbatim twice: "Material from this website may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment for education and training purposes, but may not be used for sale or profit without the written permission of Skills for Care." That is an express "free to reproduce" permission (attribution + non-commercial), so it qualifies as open under the brief's definition. Caveats: (1) it is a custom statement, not a named/standard licence (no Creative Commons, OGL, or public-domain badge was found anywhere); (2) it is conditioned on acknowledgment AND non-commercial use — extract-and-store for an internal, non-profit resource library is permitted, but onward commercial use is not; (3) it is site-wide for skillsforcare.org.uk content and says "unless stated otherwise," so individual resources or embedded third-party material may carry different terms and should be checked per item; (4) the target id./connect. subdomain is itself a gated service, so this verdict covers Skills for Care published website/resource content, not account-only material. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted
Smartdesc
IT support and proactive customer care for charities and nonprofits
Smartdesc ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Smartdesc (Academia Ltd t/a Smartdesc) is a commercial IT managed-service provider for charities; its site is marketing/blog content. I checked the homepage footer, /about-us/, /policies/, /privacy-policy, /master-services-agreement/, the /blog/ index and one full article, and probed /terms/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/ (all 404), plus a web search. There is no open-reuse signal anywhere: no Creative Commons badge or link, no OGL/public-domain/copyleft, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement; the only IP document (Master Services Agreement, Clause 16) reserves pre-existing IP to the supplier. Absent any licence, the content defaults to all-rights-reserved UK copyright, so I classify it restricted (link only). Caveats: this is a by-default restriction rather than an explicit terms-of-use notice, the judgement is site-wide, and embedded third-party material may carry different terms — this is triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterToolsUnknown
TON Hub
Digital organising and strategies
Tectonica ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
TON Hub (TON = Tectonica Organizing Network) at tectonica.co/ton_hub is a curated knowledge hub run by the agency Tectonica, aggregating a resource library (/ton_resources), the recurring TON Newsletter, curated videos, and blog posts about progressive digital organising. I investigated beyond the homepage: the site is a Next.js + DatoCMS app where every unknown path returns an identical 187,298-byte SPA fallback shell, so a 200 status does not prove a page exists. By comparing RSC payload sizes and checking the 91-URL sitemap, I confirmed there is NO /terms, /terms-of-use, /privacy, /legal, /copyright, or /license page (only a real /cookies page, which contains no reuse/IP language). No Creative Commons badge/link, no 'all rights reserved' notice, and no 'free to use/share/adapt' statement appears anywhere on the homepage, ton_hub, or ton_resources (the only 'copyright' strings found were inside newsletter articles discussing OpenAI's Sora policy, not a site licence). The sole terms document on the site is the NationBuilder Marketplace Theme Terms & Conditions, which is scoped to Tectonica's paid themes product ('By purchasing products or services... on the NationBuilder Marketplace') and does not mention or govern TON Hub content; a targeted web search surfaced no reuse licence either. Because there is neither an open-reuse grant nor an explicit all-rights-reserved/site terms governing the hub, the conservative result is unknown rather than open or restricted. Caveat: even setting aside Tectonica's own copyright, a large share of TON Hub is third-party material it merely links/summarises (Democracy Hub, Higher Ground Institute, WSJ, etc.), which would carry the original publishers' separate licences; this is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted
TechSoup
Tech tools, training, and support for nonprofits
TechSoup ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
TechSoup's Terms of Use, Section 7, explicitly state: "TechSoup and its licensors own the Site and all Content therein... and all worldwide intellectual property rights relating to the foregoing," and that "Except as expressly authorized by TechSoup, you may not copy, distribute, sell, lease, perform, display, sublicense, modify or prepare derivative works of the Site or Site Content, in whole or in part. We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." Footers on the main site and the blog read "Copyright (c) 2026, TechSoup Global. All Rights Reserved," with no Creative Commons badge or open-licence statement anywhere; a targeted web search for TechSoup content licence/reuse terms surfaced no open licence. Caveats: this is the site-wide position — individual resources may carry their own (often more permissive) per-item licences, and embedded third-party software/donations have separate vendor terms; the engage.techsoup.org community subdomain (the given source URL) is a discussion forum that returned only a login-gated title and no separate terms page, so user-posted forum content was not separately assessable, but the parent TechSoup terms apply to its non-user Site Content.
- CampaigningForumsUnknown
The Campaigning Forum (ECF) Community
Global network of campaigning and advocacy practitioners
FairSay ↗Licence: none found (general content); event participant photos/video/audio are CC BY-SA 2.0 UKevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the ECF community page, the fairsay.com homepage, the knowledge base, two real resource pages (a "web brief" guide and an ECF news post), the privacy policy, and the event-policies page; the candidate legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about) all return HTTP 404. There is no site-wide copyright notice or content-reuse licence anywhere, and the privacy policy covers only personal data. The single Creative Commons reference (CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK, on the event-policies page) is scoped strictly to participant photos/video/audio from events, and the only explicit "copy/adapt" grant is limited to cross-promotion marketing snippets — neither covers the knowledge-base guides, news posts, or toolkits a content library would extract, several of which are written by named third-party authors. With no licence signal and no explicit reuse permission for the general content after a genuine look, the conservative verdict is unknown rather than open; this is triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
The Commons Newsletter
Resources for social change: new additions and round-ups depending on current events
Commons Library ↗Licence: Mixed per-resource: many Creative Commons (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), some All Rights Reserved; no site-wide open licenceevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Commons Social Change Library has NO site-wide open licence. Its Website Use Terms (/terms-of-service/) state "Many resources in the Commons use Creative Commons licenses" and direct users to a per-resource licensing box, and the contributor guide confirms each author picks their own licence from a menu (Public Domain, CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-ND, or All Rights Reserved). I verified the per-item model on real pages: the Neurodiversity Movement book is CC BY-SA 4.0 and BATMo is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (both openly reusable with attribution), whereas other items (e.g. the "How to Make Trouble and Influence People" page) are marked All Rights Reserved. Because reuse rights are determined per item and at least some content is all-rights-reserved, the site cannot be treated as blanket-open; I mark it restricted at the site level. Practical guidance: extract/store only individual resources whose own licence box shows a CC or public-domain licence (with attribution, and respecting NC/ND/SA terms), and link-only for All Rights Reserved items. Caveat: this is triage, not legal advice, and embedded third-party material within an otherwise-open resource may carry its own rights.
- CampaigningResource libraryOpen
The Commons Social Change Library
The Commons Social Change Library
Commons Library ↗Licence: Creative Commons (per-resource; CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 observed)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Commons Social Change Library applies Creative Commons licences on a per-resource basis, displayed in a licensing box at the foot of each article. I confirmed real CC badges on three distinct pages: the source start-here page is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (links creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), while the campaign-strategy and organising start-here pages are CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). The "Website Use" terms page corroborates this, stating "Many resources in the Commons use Creative Commons licenses which require you to only use them for noncommercial purposes and ensure attribution," with licence details shown per item. Caveats: licences vary per resource (no single site-wide grant), so each item must be checked individually — some carry NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivs (ND) terms that permit verbatim storage with attribution but forbid adaptation/commercial use; the specific source page (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) is NC+ND. Embedded third-party works may carry their original authors' separate licences. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningResource libraryOpen
The Engine Room Library
The Engine Room Library
The Engine Room ↗Licence: Creative Commons — per-resource, mix of CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The HTML chrome of theengineroom.org (homepage, the /library/ archive, individual resource pages, and /about) shows only "Copyright © 2026. The Engine Room. All Rights Reserved" and no Creative Commons link (confirmed by raw-HTML grep), and /terms, /copyright, /legal, /privacy-policy all 404 — so the wrapper pages look all-rights-reserved. But the actual library content is the downloadable report PDFs, and every publication I sampled (2018, 2019, 2024) carries an explicit CC notice on its credits page, e.g. "The text of this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" (by-sa/4.0) and, for the Nov-2024 report, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (by-nc-sa/4.0); the Information Ecosystems subdomain footer also states CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Since the library exists to distribute these openly-licensed publications, the content is reusable, hence open. Caveats: the licence is stated per-resource inside each PDF (not site-wide) and varies between BY-SA (adapt + commercial OK) and BY-NC-SA (non-commercial only), so each item must be checked individually; the notices license "the text of this work," so embedded third-party images/figures and any all-rights-reserved web pages are not covered. This is triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
The Opinion Brief
Insights from polling and focus groups
More in Common ↗Licence: All rights reserved (©2026 More in Common UK)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page checked — homepage, the /newsletter/ source page, the Privacy Policy, About Us, Our Work, and two actual research/resource pages (Causes Over Cuts, A Respect Crisis) — carries the identical footer notice "©2026 More in Common UK. All rights reserved." and nothing more permissive. The standard licence/terms URLs (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /terms-and-conditions) all return HTTP 404, the Privacy Policy contains no IP/reuse clause, and no Creative Commons badge or link appears anywhere; a targeted web search surfaced no reuse-permission or terms page either. This is a conservative "restricted" call: blanket all-rights-reserved copyright with no stated reuse permission, so content should be linked to rather than extracted/stored absent written permission. Caveats: the signal is site-wide and identical on individual reports (no more-permissive per-resource licence found), and embedded third-party material such as data tables/charts may carry its own separate terms; this is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningValidated professional servicesUnknown
The Relationships Map
Directory of individuals and organisations
Relationships Project ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
After a thorough pass I found no content-reuse licence for relationshipsproject.org. The homepage, the target "Relationships Map" page, and three real resource pages (Case Maker, Glossary, Resource Repository) carry no copyright, Creative Commons, or reuse statement in body, footer, or raw HTML; the footer only credits the host charity (Grapevine) and links a Privacy Policy that contains no IP/copyright clause. Standard licence/terms URLs (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /license) all return 404, and a web search surfaced no reuse terms. The only licence strings in the page source (GPL v2, MIT/animate.css) belong to the WordPress theme and JS libraries, not the editorial content. Caveat: this is a site-wide finding with no explicit grant either way — absence of a licence defaults to all-rights-reserved by copyright, so treat as link-only until confirmed; also the Resource Repository aggregates third-party resources whose own licences differ (per-item check needed). Conservatively classed unknown rather than restricted because no notice was located after a genuine look; contacting hello@relationshipsproject.org would resolve it.
- ImmigrationPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
The Right to Remain Toolkit
The Right to Remain Toolkit
Right to Remain ↗Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Right to Remain Toolkit explicitly carries a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. The toolkit landing page and individual resource pages all embed the standard CC machine-readable markup (rel="license" linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ with the 88x31 CC badge) plus the verbatim text: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, share, adapt, use the material for non-commercial purposes" subject to Attribution and NonCommercial conditions. A dedicated site-wide /permissions/ page restates the same licence, so it is not limited to a single resource. This is an open Creative Commons licence, so extracting and storing the content is permitted. Caveats: (1) reuse must be non-commercial and must credit Right to Remain with a link to the licence and indication of any changes, not implying endorsement; (2) the licence covers Right to Remain's own toolkit content — any embedded third-party material (images, quoted documents) may carry separate rights; (3) this is licensing triage, not legal advice.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
Third Sector AM and PM (member exclusive)
Updates of the top stories affecting charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises
Third Sector ↗Licence: All rights reserved (Haymarket Media Group copyright; no reuse licence)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Third Sector (thirdsector.co.uk) is published by Haymarket Media Group. Its Terms & Conditions state verbatim: "The copyright and all other rights in the material on the Website are owned by Haymarket," visitors may only "download a single copy ... for your own private viewing ... purposes only," "No copying or distribution of material on the Website for any commercial or business use is permitted without our prior written consent," and "all rights in material on the Website are reserved to Haymarket." The Prohibited Use clause specifically bars using the site "to create a database (electronic or otherwise) that includes material downloaded or otherwise obtained from the Website" and to "re-circulate any material obtained from the Website to any third party" — directly forbidding extract-and-store into a resource library. There is no Creative Commons, OGL, or open-reuse signal anywhere; the cited source is itself a paywalled member-exclusive bulletin. The verbatim clauses were read from a Wayback Machine snapshot of the official /termsandconditions page (the live site returns HTTP 403 to automated fetches), and two independent web searches confirm the live terms carry identical language. Caveat: this is a site-wide all-rights-reserved verdict; individual articles could in principle carry third-party or syndicated content under different terms, but nothing indicates any item is openly licensed.
- NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Restricted
Third Sector Fundraising
Fundraising news and best practice every week, including digital fundraising, legacy fundraising, trust fundraising, street fundraising, direct marketing, corporate partnerships and events
Third Sector ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; copyright Haymarket Media Group)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Third Sector (thirdsector.co.uk) is published by Haymarket Media Group; its Terms & Conditions state "The copyright and all other rights in the material on the Website are owned by Haymarket" and permit only a single private-use download/print, explicitly prohibiting creating a database from downloaded material, re-circulating material to third parties, and any commercial/business copying without prior written consent. This all-rights-reserved regime forbids the extract-and-store use an internal library requires, and no Creative Commons/OGL/public-domain or "free to share" statement appears anywhere. Caveats: the live site blocked direct fetching (HTTP 403), so the terms were verified via consistent search-engine retrieval of the /termsandconditions page rather than a direct read, and individual resource pages could not be opened to check for any more permissive per-item licence (none is indicated, and most content is member-gated). Triage only, not legal advice.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
Toolbox
Campaigning toolbox
Beautiful Trouble ↗Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Beautiful Trouble's site-wide footer states: "Beautiful Trouble by Beautiful Trouble, various authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License," with a CC badge linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. I confirmed this identical notice on the homepage, the About page, the Toolbox listing, and an individual tool page, and it is independently corroborated by Creative Commons' own blog post about the project. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is an open reuse licence that explicitly permits copying, storing and adapting the content, so extracting + storing for an internal (non-commercial) library is permitted, subject to attribution, non-commercial use, and share-alike. Caveats: the licence is asserted site-wide rather than per-resource, so any embedded third-party media may carry separate rights; and the NonCommercial term would restrict any commercial redistribution downstream.
- CampaigningSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open
Toolkits
Guides for a quick start on key activities in community work
Community Tool Box ↗Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Community Tool Box (ctb.ku.edu) carries a site-wide footer notice "Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, confirmed on the homepage, the toolkit table-of-contents page, and an individual toolkit resource page (no differing per-item licence observed). CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is a recognized open/free-culture licence that explicitly permits copying, redistributing, and adapting the material, so extracting and storing content for an internal, non-commercial library is permitted — subject to attribution (APA-style citation requested), non-commercial use only, and ShareAlike on any adaptations. Caveat: the site's "Use Policy" adds friction that partly conflicts with the CC grant (it says files cannot be altered or distributed without written permission, and requires contact/fees for commercial use, paid workshops, and republication in printed publications); if your use is non-commercial internal reference this is open, but commercial redistribution or printed republication would need direct permission. Further caveat: the licence applies to CTB's own content, not any embedded third-party material, and the "© All Rights Reserved" line alongside the CC badge is the standard CC pattern, not a contradiction.
- HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Tracking law changes: Employment Rights Act 2025
Tracking law changes: Employment Rights Act 2025
CIPD ↗Licence: none found (all rights reserved — © The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
CIPD (cipd.org) is all-rights-reserved with an explicit prohibition on reuse — there is no open or Creative Commons licence. Every page (homepage, the source Employment Rights Act article, and factsheet/knowledge pages) carries "© Copyright The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2026" with no CC/OGL badge or "free to use/share/adapt" statement. The Terms and Conditions, Section 5 (Intellectual Property), states all IPRs in the published material are owned by or licensed to the CIPD, and clause 5.2 explicitly forbids reuse: save as incidental to authorised access, "you must not reproduce, download, transmit or retransmit, manipulate or store on paper, electronic (including ... any database ...) ... in whole or in part ... the information or material published on the pages of it, nor hypertext or otherwise link to it, without the prior written consent of the CIPD." There is no personal/non-commercial or fair-dealing carve-out, and the restriction even extends to linking. Caveat: the prohibition is site-wide for CIPD-owned editorial content (factsheets, guides, knowledge articles); a separate clause governs user contributions to CIPD Professional Communities (IP stays with the contributor, licensed to CIPD), but that does not grant the library any right to extract CIPD's own content. Verdict: extraction/storage is not permitted — link-only, or seek prior written consent. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown
Trainings for campaigners
Trainings for campaigners
Social Movement Technologies ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The live site (socialmovementtechnologies.org) blocks automated access, returning HTTP 403 on the homepage and every candidate path (/terms/, /terms-of-use/, /privacy-policy/, /free-trainings-resources/), and no Wayback snapshot was retrievable, so I could not directly read its footer or resource pages. Working through search-indexed content, the only first-party legal document I could confirm is a Privacy Policy that addresses personal data, cookies and Do-Not-Track but says nothing about copyright, IP, or content reuse; no dedicated terms-of-use, licence, copyright, or "website use" page surfaced, and I found no Creative Commons badge/link or any explicit "free to use/share/adapt" statement for SMT's own content. Because there is no open-reuse signal, reuse should NOT be assumed; however, I also could not view SMT's own footer to positively cite an "all rights reserved" notice, so restricted cannot be asserted with a source either. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment only — SMT distributes some materials via The Commons Library (a CC-licensed third-party platform) and per-resource licences on the live site could differ; a manual browser check of the footer/resource pages is needed to settle open-vs-restricted.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted
Useful resources for running a co-op
Useful resources for running a co-op
Cooperation Town ↗Licence: none found (bare "© Cooperation Town 2026" copyright notice)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
I went well beyond the homepage: the resources page and every page checked carry only a bare footer notice "© Cooperation Town 2026" with no reuse grant. All standard licence/terms pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) return HTTP 404, and the /about, /organise and /coop-town-hub content hubs contain no licensing or reuse language. An actual resource (the General Poster PDF) carries no embedded licence, and there are no Creative Commons badges or creativecommons.org/licenses links anywhere. Two web searches found no licence terms either. Under a conservative reading this is all-rights-reserved (restricted): copyright is asserted and no permission to extract/store is stated. Caveats: (1) this is a site-wide assessment — the site invites co-ops to "use and adapt" its Starter Pack in spirit, so an explicit licence may exist off-site or be obtainable by asking; (2) many listed "resources" are third-party links (Seeds for Change, The Decider, kin.coop, Google Docs) that carry their own separate licences and must be assessed individually, not under cooperation.town's terms.
- HRValidated professional servicesRestricted
Volunteering hub
Connecting platform for volunteers
Reach Volunteering ↗Licence: All rights reserved (no reuse permission); CC BY-SA 4.0 reference applies only to a third-party legal-text template incorporated into Reach's Terms, not to site contentevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Reach Volunteering's Terms of Use, Section 6 ("How you may use material on the Website"), explicitly reserves all rights: 6.1 states Reach owns or licenses all IP in the Website and its published material and "All such rights are reserved"; 6.2 bars using any part of the content for commercial purposes without a licence; 6.3 terminates usage rights and requires destruction of copies made in breach. The homepage footer carries only a charity-registration line with no copyright symbol, CC badge, or reuse grant, and two sampled resource pages (/build-dynamic-trustee-board, /trustee-recruitment-cycle) carry no per-item licence, so the all-rights-reserved site terms govern them. The single creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 link on the Terms page is an acknowledgement that Reach's own Online Safety Act 2023 wording was adapted from a CC BY-SA template by Neil Brown — it is the inbound licence on a legal-text template, not an outbound licence on Reach's content. Caveat: verdict is site-wide triage, not legal advice; embedded third-party material may differ.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen
What do you need to protect?
List of key resources for campaigners on digital security
Security in a box ↗Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Security-in-a-Box (a project of Front Line Defenders) carries a site-wide footer notice reading "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International," and the badge links to the canonical https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. I confirmed the same notice appears consistently on the homepage, the about page, an actual resource/guide page (phones-and-computers/malware), and the disclaimer page, indicating it applies to the content itself rather than just site chrome. CC BY-SA 4.0 permits extracting, storing, and adapting the material, so reuse is allowed provided you give attribution and license any derivatives under the same terms (ShareAlike). Caveat: the licence covers Security-in-a-Box's own content site-wide; any embedded third-party material (e.g., linked tools or quoted sources) may carry separate terms and was not individually verified.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown
Wiki guidance to set up co-ops
Wiki guidance to set up co-ops
Radical Routes ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Radical Routes co-ops wiki (MediaWiki 1.45.3, Citizen skin) carries no content-reuse signal anywhere I looked. The homepage footer omits the standard MediaWiki copyright slot entirely (only site description, Privacy/About/Disclaimers links, a 'get involved in developing this wiki' tagline, and a 'Powered by MediaWiki' icon). The three footer policy pages are unconfigured defaults: About is a 'To be written' stub, and General_disclaimer/Privacy_policy/Project:Copyrights return 404. Two real resource pages (Forming_a_group, Loan_stock) contain zero copyright/licence/Creative Commons/attribution markers in their HTML, so there is no per-item licence either; a web search and the parent org's resources page also yielded no reuse terms. Caveats: this is a site-wide finding and silence is not permission, so I treat it conservatively as unknown rather than open; the GPL on Special:Version covers only the MediaWiki software, not the content; the wiki invites editing/contribution but says nothing about extracting and re-publishing content. Triage only, not legal advice — confirm with the Radical Routes Digital Working group before reuse.
- CampaigningResource libraryOpen
Written guides
Guides designed to help create more effective campaigns, co-ops or projects
Seeds for Change ↗Licence: Anti-copyright (copyleft share-alike statement; no formal named licence)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The guides index page (the cited source) carries an explicit, unambiguous site-wide reuse grant for the content in scope: "All Seeds for Change guides are anti-copyright. Feel free to copy, adapt, use and distribute them, as long as the final work remains anti-copyright." This is a free/open copyleft statement (explicit permission to copy, adapt and distribute) with a single share-alike condition that derivatives stay anti-copyright, plus a non-binding request to be notified of translations. The statement was confirmed verbatim on two fetches and corroborated by third parties (Activist Handbook, Commons Library). Caveats: the declaration lives on the /guides listing page and applies to "all guides"; individual guide pages and the homepage do not repeat it, and there is no named licence (e.g. CC) or dedicated /copyright or /terms page (both returned 404 / nothing). The grant covers Seeds for Change's own guide content only; any embedded third-party material would need separate checking. This is triage, not legal advice.
- CampaigningMembership orgsUnknown
Youth and local groups
Network of local organising groups
Global Justice Now ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
I checked the source page and homepage footers (only company/charity registration numbers, no copyright or Creative Commons notice), probed standard terms URLs (/terms/, /terms-and-conditions/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/, /license/ all return 404; no terms-of-use page exists), the privacy policy (GDPR/data only, no IP or reuse clause), the about page, the resource library, and two actual resource pages (a leaflet and the activist-guides hub) — none state any per-item or site-wide licence, and no creativecommons.org links appear anywhere. A web search for the site name plus licence/reuse terms returned nothing specific. There is no signal either way: no explicit free/open reuse grant and no explicit all-rights-reserved statement, so under a conservative reading this is unknown rather than restricted. Caveats: this reflects the site as crawled today (note the materials carry future-dated 2026 timestamps, suggesting recent/possibly mirrored content); a licence could exist in PDF resource files or a print/staff handbook not surfaced on the HTML pages, and any reuse would still need to exclude embedded third-party material (e.g. quoted statements, partner logos). This is triage, not legal advice.