<i>> Some places are better than others for placing QR codes. Bearing in mind it takes a while to scan, rather than putting a code in that busy passage way why not put in on the subway train where everybody is rather bored and is playing with their phones anyways.</i><p>Because there is no reception underground. (Yes, this is changing, depending on the city. e.g. in London there is now free wifi at some stations, but not between stations.)<p>Also, some people, when a stranger takes a photo of the ad above their head, will mistakenly believe the stranger is taking a photo of <i>them</i>, and treat it as threatening behaviour.<p>There is a typo in your <title>: "aobut" should be "about".
I prefer this as my QR code reference: <a href="http://picturesofpeoplescanningqrcodes.tumblr.com/" rel="nofollow">http://picturesofpeoplescanningqrcodes.tumblr.com/</a>
And yet the QR code on the front page has an embedded logo, which isn't at all part of the spec, I think. Kind of ironic. I know brands <i>love</i> those designer QR codes (or at least loathe them less) but they have a significant impact on scan-ability, even if many decoders are good enough to scan them, they might take longer, especially on non-top-of-the-line phones. The point of a QR code is to make that information easier to get at, and the designer codes are at odds with this. (disclaimer, I worked at a barcode startup for a bit, and I left partly because I don't buy QR codes)
Licencing - you've misspelled 'patented'
Readability - "its", <i>not</i> "it's"<p>There's a bunch of other grammar/style issues - get someone to proofread it.
>Would you do it?
Always try to stand in a shoes of a regular person and ask yourself would I scan it? Does this convince me to take out my phone and spend 10 seconds of my time to scan that QR code? Is it attractive enough?<p>When the answer to this question is a 'No I would not', I fail to see the utility of these things.