I think you are not a lawyer, and your grasp of fair use is lacking.
It's a photo of a vhs tape. They are using it to represent a photo of a vhs tape with their logo on it. What "substantial modification" could you possibly be thinking of.
The article admits that they modified it to get it to fit the aspect ratio of the DVD and added all the stickers on the outside of the VHS that were not present originally.
Edit: For clarification, I'm not saying it qualifies as fair use but just clarifying OP's claim that there was significant modification. That doesn't mean it's legit.
They didn't modify the dimensions. They added to the original artwork so that it would fit within new dimensions. They cloned parts of the image and added extra space so that the aspect ratio would stay the same but so the VHS tape would fill the entire cover. The end result is not the same aspect ratio as the original image. They also added stickers and labels.
It's a photo of a vhs tape. They are using it to represent a photo of a vhs tape with their logo on it. What "substantial modification" could you possibly be thinking of.