They certainly can demand payment. In the movie Back to the Future II, the producers included recycled footage of Crispin Glover, who had played George McFly in the first BTTF movie. Glover sued Universal, the distributor of the movies, claiming that his contract for the first film did not allow subsequent uses of his portrayal of George McFly in new films. The day before the lawsuit was to be heard, Universal settled with him for an undisclosed sum. The Screen Actors Guild later rewrote their rules regarding the derivative use of actors’ works in films or TV series, setting terms under which to require the studios and networks to give payment and credit to the actors.
A photo, as an artistic expression, has an implied copyright owned by the photographer. I’m not sure if a brief glimpse would or would not be covered by fair use, but if it was an integral part of the movie - such as a close up is taken of it - it would be. Thus the movie maker would seem to need to get permission from the copyright holder. That’s beyond the use of image issues already discussed.
Movies don’t have residuals, of course. But for commercials and TV, the standard SAG contract does give residuals to all principals, which covers not only stars but all actors who have a name in the script and who have a prominent placement. In the first commercial my daughter did, she was a principal because she was in front of the audience and had a name in the cast list. There were extras in the next row back. One of the things that pissed off the director was the mothers who tried to get their kids to push forward so they’d be featured and thus be principals. Extras don’t get residuals. Extras don’t have to be SAG, and, most importantly, extras get worse food. 
I’m not sure what residuals have to do with the issue at hand, though. The contract often calls for payments for other uses, such as a DVD, but that isn’t an instance of a residual payment.