

Gotta frame the ideas first.
A human right is something that should be inalienable. It would be something that, when violated, suppressed, or interfered with, would cause some degree of problem, regardless of the country or other geopolitical framework.
A civil right is a right which would similarly cause an individual some degree of problem, but only within a given geopolitical framework.
As an example, voting. In any state, it should be a right that every individual human have a say in their own governance. But voting is only one possible expression of that underlying right, and wouldn’t be applicable in all settings. That it is the most direct and obvious expression is separate.
So, no, I don’t think the right to be forgotten is a human right, as it only matters within limited contexts. But it should be considered a civil right.
Now, if anyone doesn’t like those terms, fine, feel free to use your own. They’re just what I use in my head for organizing ideas, not some kind of official thing.
The only reason the distinction matters is that we currently live in a world where not everyone agrees on what are and aren’t human rights. When a given culture outright rejects things that another holds central, there’s not going to be consensus. That’s not to say that the consensus would be right, but if everyone agrees on it anyway, then the distinction ceases to matter because they’ll effectively be the same thing.
That’s just it, the subject does have rights. I’m not sure why you think they don’t.
While truly public photos have distant different rules, these weren’t public photos.
Neil Zlozower is a specialist in music photography. While I don’t expect anyone to know that without looking, it is easily available information.
If you don’t know what that means, it means that musicians are his collaborators, not some random people he snapped pics of as they walked down the road.
The photos in question were taken under contract. Ozzy agreed to the terms, or Zlozower wouldn’t have been able to take them. The pics with Randy Rhodes may be famous, but that doesn’t mean that Ozzy can just up and decide to use them in violation of that contract.
This isn’t some random asshole that had a small 110 camera in his pocket and caught a few pics. He was a professional there to take pics, and everything was agreed on, and signed, before he took the first one.
Now, what that agreement was, I have no clue. But, and this is the important part, it absolutely would have included usage rights. Most of the time, such contracts don’t include the subject of the photos being able to use them commercially. And that’s what the lawsuit is about, the photographer is saying that the usage was commercial, and violates his copyright.
Now, if you want to say that isn’t the way things should be that’s a different issue. But that’s the way things are, no matter what anyone’s opinion is.