You are SO wrong about this. As was said, startrekhistory.com does NOT own these images and was relying on fair use laws to show them on their site. So this publisher is completely entitled to behave the same way. Restoring a photo to its original appearance in the '60s doesn't give anybody special ownership rights; no doubt the book editors / photography team also worked with the pics in PhotoShop - if you read some of the Amazon comments. That could be just as hard work. And it's obvious to most people that putting tiny black and white photos in the book is hardly exploiting them.
For me, it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's about if I was in that situation and did the work, would I want to be treated the same way? I wouldn't.
But it does seem to me that you are taking things to a horrible extreme. You're saying if one guy fixes some scratches/blemishes on a photo he doesn't own -- no one else in the world can reprint that same image. Even if that same photo was printed decades earlier in different magazines or sold in multiple copies? So it is absolutely not unique. And what if someone else does more repair / rework on it ... or changes it from color to B&W ... the next guy is not allowed to do anything with it because one person fixed a scratch? It's clear the publisher reworked all of the images ... they are no longer in color and they say they also spent alot of time with them in PhotoShop. And I've seen some of these same photos on many sites around the net and in old books and magazines printed long ago. I suspect some are from startrekhistory but could just as easily have originated elsewhere or from identical paper photos or other film clips.