You would only need to ‘open up’ to satire if the default were ‘satire forbidden’; which it isn’t.
A private individual of no public interest whatsoever might have an easier time arguing that things are veering into protective-order territory; but arguing for your privacy interest in publicly listed photos would be tricky; and while it is considered good taste to focus on the sins of the prominent, saying mean things about the taste of commoners is just as legal.
Maybe you could work ‘tortious interference’ in? That seems to be a popular one for C&D demands; plus it sounds cool.
