I figure you're doing the same as someone that cuts an article that they are mentioned in out of a newspaper and frames it on their wall. I've seen plenty of restaurants and businesses do it.
> It could potentially be considered fair use, since I'm not making a profit and I provide commentary.
Although people through that term around willy nilly, in our current framework that means being sued for a minimum of $100,000 per supposed violation, and making your fair use defense in front of a judge.
Youtubers have reported spending $50,000 just to begin talking with lawyers and preparing briefs.
It's behind a paywall now, but at least I have a digital copy!