http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/
Fairly useful info with this link. Been looking into this myself recently, and here's how far I've go so far though others may know more.
Although the article is about online images what you are doing falls pretty much under 'fair use' or 'fair usage'.
Quick summary is you can take any image and use it for purposes to in short don't imply it's YOUR image. So lets say you took a screen shot and used it on your website saying this is a screen shot from this blah blah show that was on this blah blah date. That pretty much falls under fair usage. Your making it blatantly clear it's not your image, your offering the source of the image and you are using it within the 'fair use' context.
You are even entitled to help yourself to portion of video if you felt like it.
Where you are likely to be asking for trouble is if you pass on the image as your own work or even leave doubt about that. Or you use the image in a manner that is misleading or leads to a misleading impression about the creator of the image, their intentions re. the image and all the rest of it.
But to cut a long story short, the internet would shut down without 'fair' use. Every tube site, image gallery, and so on is more or less covered by fair use.
Read an article the other day saying even the top News publications don't bother seeking permission for the vast majority of images they use and simply ignore cease and desist requests.
The trick is generally to compliment or promote the creator of the image. That's what affiliate networking is based on. You can get a screen grab of say a pair of Nike trainers, and suffer no consequence as long as you are actually promoting them for instance or in some other way being complimentary or whatever information positive or bad you apply to the image better be accurate.
And it's the latter you need to consider. It's not using the image, it's making sure the how you use it is true and accurate or you can in i'd imagine rare cases risk defamation.
I read for instance Perez Hilton is only a fraction as rich as he ought to be cos he spends most of his time fighting lawsuits regarding the images and articles on this website. But this is obviously cos most of the stuff and the manner in which he uses it ISN'T complimentary or from the point of view of his accusers isn't even accurate.
There's also a precedence that says for example if you happen to be in the business of selling second hand Ford cars then you're allowed to use 'Ford' in marketing. You're allowed to use Ford images and so on. What you are not allowed to do is pass yourself off to imply you are Ford however or that you created those images or own that trademark. Nor are you allowed to use Ford's trademark and images/video etc in isolation. As in that's the only content you provide. It would have to be merely a portion.
