I was wondering about the transformative issue, but I didn't think simply restoring a clip would transform it. This mattered with my book: since I was taking quotes from previous works but stitching them into something new, it is ok.
This transformative angle came up in a case involving t-shirts of the Three Stooges and their own publicity rights: the right to make money from one's own visage. The shirts simply had pictures of them that hadn't really been altered; unlike, say, Warhol's art of Marilyn. (Or my AWESOME Warhol-esque Spock shirt, referenced in my book!) I'm sure the lawyers would enjoy arguing whether color-restoring pictures you didn't have the right to, constitutes artistic transformation. And of course, it depends what judge you draw.
Let me restate that if the authors did what some people think/claim, I still think that's dirty pool, and an ODD shortcut considering how many ridiculous hours of research they must have put in on the text. From the sound of it, there are only these trims and publicity stills illustrating the book? So they didn't want to license images from the episodes from whatever corporation owns them? Anyone contact the authors yet? (I'm not a buyer, nor will I be.)