That continues: "However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’."

There has been a huge attempt by Bridgeman and others to create FUD in this area. It didn't work. Partly because Wikipedia is willing to go to court if necessary.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_...

...that's literally what I already said though?

> if there is intellectual creation involved in their restoration or touching up

Bizarre how people come in saying 'no.' with a big full stop, give a confused precedent from an entirely different country and legal system, then quote from links I gave them that paraphrase what I said and make it clear that it isn't a simple 'no.' or 'settled' like they said it was.

>you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos

I don't have an opinion in either direction but it seems unnecessary to criticize the disagreement of others when even your own link refutes your claim, as Animats pointed out above. "Let's not throw stones in glass houses" and such.

Are there any examples to cite that support your claim?

> when even your own link refutes your claim

No it doesn't - it says it's not a settled issue.

"No ... settled" vs an actual official UK government website on the subject contradicting with actually there's a "degree of uncertainty". How much of a better source can you get than that?