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.