It's a privacy issue, not one of trauma, which is my entire point.

You find it reasonable for a paid actor to say that one movie they did ten years ago should now be forbidden because they feel like it? I find the notion ridiculous.

Pictures of you are only personal if taken in a personal space. If your picture is taken while you are at a train station, for example, that is not personal data of you. It's a picture of a public place that you happened to be in as part of the public.

If you decide to appear in a movie, the expectation should be for other people to see it. Otherwise, why do it in the first place? Isn't the entire point of doing so to share it with others? Even if those others are only expected to be a small, private audience. How could a difference in audience size lead to the experience to become haunting and traumatizing? Violation of privacy, sure, but that's a completely different issue.

This also reminds me of the hero buying nude pictures from sluts only to send those pictures to their parents. The sluts were probably 'haunted' and 'traumatized' by that, too, despite openly selling their own nudes.