Open Benches already has a tag for multiple plaques: https://openbenches.org/tag/multiple%20plaques

That sounds, at least in part, like OpenPlaques: https://openplaques.org/

The images in this case are copyright-expired (Crown copyright photographs taken before 1 July 1957 = copyright expired 50 years after creation).

Historic England have even stated explicitly "We're not claiming copyright in the RAF images":

https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland/status/15073771987470336...

(they actually were, but stopped doing so once I pointed out the facts to them.)

I know of two further sites where SmartFrame is being used to stop people "stealing" out-of-copyright images, and to label them as protected by copyright.

This is simply a land-grab, attempting to enclose the (digital) commons.

There's also the fact that, for images that do remain in copyright, there are exceptions in law allowing reuse for study, review, parody etc.

The publication, not the publisher.

Ah yes, that's true.

"html class/tag names or whatever provide no stability guarantees"

Not quite. Many Wikipedia infoboxes (and some other templates) use standardised class names from microformats such as hCard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Microformats

Hey judegomila,

You're using my images - hundreds of them, it seems - in breach of the licence. Where do I send my invoice?

I'm sure as you wish to be "on strong moral ground", you won't want to deny me what you owe me.

In recent years, the BL have worked closely with Wikipedians to share media under free/ open licences, including over a million images on Flickr Commons, and releasing audio recordings of birds, to which they own the copyright. I've worked with them on both projects. They also employed a Wikipedian in Residence for a year, and generously hosted a Wikipedia conference and other Wikipedia events.

Surely there's no copyright in birdsong recordings (taken individually at least). There is no creative input from the recorder.

Bulbasaur has 40 references.