The article mentioned Raziye but not the fact that she was a journalist, or at another newspaper (that has since been changed – albeit with a nofollow link).
At the time I pointed out to Raziye that this meant she actually had publishing permission to a page on the Daily Mail website: if she changed the map – say, for example, to a list of her articles on the Telegraph – then readers of the Daily Mail would see that instead.
But this didn't work with the Daily Mail – because they didn't embed it: according to Yau, they went a whole step further.
This really is blatant. In particular, I'm guessing The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992, which extended copyright law to apply to programming, would be worth checking here.
"Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used".
In cases like this you could make a strong argument that a link is appropriate and reasonable, but copying across code is not.
I would welcome any other examples or relevant cases on this front.