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.
44 of 83 sources (filtered · clear)
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/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.