I think indeed he can make a claim for the tort of “false light” invasion of privacy if he can show New York Times v. Sullivan malice in the choice of depiction in the gay magazine. The problem may be as you say that mere depiction in a gay magazine may not, in and of itself, subject the reasonable person to humiliation and embarrassment. As we know, it’s not about reputation in a false light case as in the closely related defamation torts (libel & lander), but rather injured feelings and embarrassment. It’s a very Victorian mindset indeed to reach that conclusion that inclusion in the periodical is per se offensive, but the Complaint alleges vulgar and lewd advertisements surrounding the photo, so maybe a threshold case can be presented. Tough case, but I do like it!

“. . . invasion of privacy and defamation arising out of the unauthorized use, sell, distribution, and publication of photographs of Plaintiff”

“Page sixty-six . . . featured a full eight-and-a-half by eleven (8 ½ X 11) photograph of Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MASSING, posed in a cruel and vulgar way . . . [and] was intentionally altered, cropped, and/or doctored to make Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MASSING, appear nude and/or to accentuate his semi-nudity with his hand posed in an objectionable manner”

There’s a false light claim in there too, saying they made him look like he posed in a nude or objectionable manner and that he was gay, causing pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, etc.