[Colofornian]

But, as he said, he uses portions of them in his own videos; this seems to be a clear violation of copyright as well as a violation of the rights of any actors in the productions who had not given their releases for the use of their images.

First of all, I don't think he is using entire productions in these products. Therefore, he is using excerpts which could come under "fair use" clauses in the law (much the way one author cites another, or the news media airing clips on its news shows). These news shows air these clips minus any actor releases. {Although writing comes under different law venues than re-broadcast of images, even Web sites like this one uses other published articles minus any "pre-release" signed by the author or journalist. Why? Because once you put something out into the public channel, it's been deemed for public consumption).

[muawiyah]

YOu are really stretching the "fair use doctrine" much too far. That applies to non-commercial speech. The law recognizes that the "news hole" in the media is non-commercial. This situation involves down-stream "commercial use", and the fair-use doctrine simply doesn't apply.

Interestingly enough the Mormons can separately go after the guy for civil damages while the government lays to with criminal charges.