"Ripped off" means stole. Using copyrighted material without permission is a form of stealing, even if there is no profit involved. In this case, the person who assembled the video isn't making money, but they are "stealing credit" for work that is only partially theirs. They make no mention of who did the work of taking the actual photos, or the work of making those photos available on the Internet. In fact, they cut off the parts of the photos that identify the photographer.
Also, youtube makes profit. They make a profit from advertisers who know that all of us will come to their site to look at videos. But if those videos are made from copyrighted material, aren't they profiting from stolen material?
People have varying opinions about intellectual property rights. We all hate copyright law when we want to copy/send a favorite song to our friend (remember Napster?). But I view this from the other side of the fence. I have spent 100s, if not 1000s of hours of my time to put interesting photos on the Internet - all clearly marked as copyrighted and belonging to the photographers who shared them. When those photos are used without permission, I do feel that the photographers (and our website) have been stolen from.