When dealing with texts, it is essential to reproduce the respective passage in the original in order to engage with them, because the choice of language or the linguistic image is important. For example, I quoted Karl Valentin's sentence above because reproducing it in your own words would not have been able to convey its uniqueness. This can also be the case with statements made in interviews or in book reviews. Apart from that, you can only quote short excerpts, preferably just individual sentences.
You can use images in their entirety, but here too the image must be necessary as evidence for intellectual statements. This is permitted, for example, in film reviews, descriptions of book covers or screenshots of websites for the purpose of reviewing them. Simply saying that the image is beautiful or interesting is not enough.
Furthermore, it must be absolutely necessary to use this chinese america data image. In practical terms, this means that you cannot use other people's images if you could have created or purchased them yourself. Just because you are writing about a subject, you cannot use other people's images just because they fit the topic. If you are writing about flowers, you cannot use other people's flower images.
As a result, one can say that outside of critiques or reviews, at least a permissible image quotation is generally ruled out due to the high legal requirements.
What does this mean for the “Spiegel” article introduced at the beginning?
This means that you can basically reproduce the content in your own words and at most you should use the title. You should not copy the image, but at most embed it.
Unless the article contains a text excerpt and a preview image defined using Open Graph code, which may be used for the purpose of referring to the article. This should be checked on a case-by-case basis. If the check is positive, you may copy these components for the purpose of referring to the article.