If you never signed any kind of release for the filming (including, perhaps, a “blanket release” that may have been part of an entry to the production, class, or whatever is being created), then by most Western law (at least to the extent that I know, and I’m no lawyer, so this opinion may not be worth a great deal) any “recognizable” images of you can’t be used in a for-profit venture without your consent.
I’m not sure, but I think that also applies to works of art that will be viewed by the public. Keep in mind that this is “recognizable images”. If the filming was done in front of a green screen, as you note that it was, then the images can be processed in any number of ways in post-production (editing) of the film.
So, that’s the first part: without a release from you, you might have a case to sue for damages if recognizable images of you appear in the public.
However, here’s the other side of that: You can’t get blood from a stone. If this is a low-budget, art-house or class project then it’s more than likely that there will be zero profit generated. Also, you’d have to prove “damages” to yourself and reputation, so it will help if you become famous, for example, and someone then releases the film – because a film of you at your current age, pre-fame, that damages your reputation, brand or image at a later date, when you’re an aspiring film star, movie magnate, business person or politician – then there’s “the damage”. So that would be “the blood” in the metaphor above.
But if these guys are always and forever operating on a shoestring, making low-budget, zero-view YouTube videos (or even PornHub or other for-profit productions), if they make no money, then you’ll get none. You could receive “a judgment” worth millions (perhaps, if the damage to your brand is so bad), but with no ability to collect on it.
Make better choices in the future and be more aware of the producers’ intent and disposition of the footage. This is a learning opportunity for you.