@Barmar Here is an example where the information is required. I asked about this here and the only answer thought it justifiable. I think it should not be, but that does not make it so.

"authenticating with you should not expose more private information, than you had before" Is this based on anything? I had assumed that this would be the case, but cannot find anything official saying so.

It is relevant if the body is still in the house or not.

@Jen I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the fact that the request is included in the relatively famous "nightmare letter" gives a certain amount of authority to the information being requested is required by the GDPR.

@Trish Indeed, but that is a different question.

@quarague As I say in the question that woudl probably be the best I could hope for, but in the absence of that some authoritative writing I guess. Ot seems liek the sort of thing that comes up.

One little comment, it is not me making any claim or logic, it is Mustafa Suleyman.

@Greendrake The AI tag is because this is in relation to the use of human created creative works in training an AI, not the AIs output. That could well be a factor in the consideration, particularly if it was a fair use question.

It seems to me the easy answer is to make a GDPR SAR.

I think your second point is the start of a good question.