> 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?