Maybe some clarification is needed here on photographs. The ownership of a photograph is the photographers not the subject of in the photograph with some real exemption's, if the photograph is the image of a genuine work of art for example a painting that will always be the property of the artist and and written books are the same you will need the author or artist's permission to use it because it enters the world of intellectual copyright. Now the way to circumvent a photographs ownership you can change something in the original photograph i.e.. lets say it is a gun remove the background replacing it with with something else using photo shop. next you could add something to the photograph like a small logo in a corner, doing this changes the original image. I am sure you have seen those Getty Images with their name plastered all over the photograph to stop you doing what I have just said. Now once you have adapted the image to the point that is not exactly the original then photograph your work the photograph you have taken means the ownership is yours. An example if this is that famous image of Che Guevara that we all know but the photographer did not receive any credit or cash for his efforts because the photograph was copied and the ownership went to any person who went to the trouble to make a copy. I personally have done this a number of times if I was unsure I would use a film camera to prove the image I used was taken by me. Now I do know that on your side of the pond that you have Lawyers that can talk the back end of a horse off and convince folks that white is black and black is white so make some enquiries first. On this side of the pond this sort of legal argument on photographs was all argued out when photography was in its infancy. This I hope is of some help though it could muddy the waters more.
Good luck with all your efforts.
Ernie
