I think the subject does have some rights though. I'm not a fancy law talking guy, but I'm pretty sure you can sue someone for using your likeness without permission. But it's a bit dependent on the circumstances, a famous person can't sue a paparazzi for taking their photo in a public place, but I think they can when there's an expectation of privacy. You see people's face blurred on TV shows unless they sign a waiver. If been walking around where they're shooting a movie they put up signs letting you know that's happening and warning that you might potentially be in the background of a shot.

It's just there's more laws protecting the the people using the camera since big companies will use any loopholes to screw them out of money.

Though in this case I think the photographer is being an asshole. If Ozzy was using the photos for an album cover which he'd make a lot of money from, then the photographer deserves to get paid. But if he's just posting some old photos of himself with his friends, then the photographer needs to chill.

There is a difference between you going to a photographer asking him to take photos of you and a paparazzi taking a photo of you in a public setting.

Yeah and if Ozzy were using them in a professional context (like for an album cover) then the professional photographer should be compensated.

But if he's he's just posting some photos of himself with his friends online, then it's a big nothing burger and the photographer should be a professional about it and consider it as fair use. Whether it fits the legal definition of fair use will need to be decided in court, but a real professional wouldn't consider it worth the time and loss of trust with other customers to pursue it.