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.
14 of 83 sources (filtered · clear)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.