That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a 'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright law.
We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.
Other industries could follow the fashion industry's lead and drop copyright infringment altogether. Somehow they manage survive and innovate without it using just social pressures, not legal pressures.
Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.
Have you seen this guy's shots? I've tried taking pictures of ants and other insects and it takes lots of luck or lots of shots that you throw out to get something even vaguely decent. Even then, nothing I've ever done looks anywhere near as good as the stuff this guy was pointing to as stolen. (And some of those shots likely required getting up close to insects in uncomfortable positions, all while trying to not interfere with the light or scare the buggers off)
Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while ignoring the subject.