Note that you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos, if there is intellectual creation involved in their restoration or touching up. Simply removing blemishes ins't enough, but I don't know what they did in this case.
No. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. That was settled years ago.
That's a US judgement. Both of the organisations in this case are British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...
> As a US court case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is not binding upon UK courts.
And the UK government has a different opinion, which matches what I said.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-...
> However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired.
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_...
> 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.
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?
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?