Ownership of an image (in the abstract) means ownership of the rights over, and benefits from, that image. There is no other meaning of ownership for a purely digital item sure as a pixel map. Your ownership doesn't mean "physical control of the copy of it that's on my camera". (Sure you can physically lock up the camera but that's not "owning" in law).
Analogy - you can sue for trespass, which is when your property rights are infringed by someone entering your land without consent. But nobody would argue that putting a wall up is ownership. The right to evict people, or enforce their removal, or seek compensation for their intrusion, is the legal right which manifests as ownership in the context of trespass. Not a watertight analogy gut may help get the idea across.
Imagine you couldn't stop a person copying your images, or your new designs, or your booknyou just wrote, you couldn't force them to acknowledge you are the creator, you couldn't control what they did or didn't do with them... in effect when it comes to this kind of property, the only ownership you have is the right in law to make decisions about, and enforce rights in, those things.
So no, splitting ownership from rights (including copyright) doesn't make legal sense.