While you own the magazine you do not own republishing rights to that image.
You can copy it, frame it and hang it above your mantel, but you can't republish it.
I took a picture of the restaurant across the street and posted it to my blog last week. Did I infringe the rights of the sign maker/owner too?
No because your work is transformitive. To be transformitive you have to offer/be something that the original didn't/wasn't and it has to have a different purpose than the original.
If you copied the sign and made a new sign for a restaurant then you could be in trouble, but when you took the picture you created a new piece of work and you used it for a blog, not the intent of the original. Also, you didn't just take a picture of the sign, the lighting, the framing, and all the other things in the photo made up the new content you created.
I'd like to know if I'm legally allowed to take a picture of me holding a magazine for use in a blog article, yes .... what the distinction is between a scan and a photograph from a legal standpoint.
This is trickier, I would say yes, but it depends how visible the image from the magazine is. The difference between taking a photo and scanning the image is; when you take a picture of yourself holding the magazine it is a new piece of work because a picture of you holding mag is is different then just the image in the magazine.
Remember to be transformitive your use has to differ from the use of the original work. This is why Parody qualifies because the intent of a parody is to mock the original. The intent of the original is rarely to mock itself.
Since the original intent of the original image is to be a graphic for a news story and you use your image for a graphic for a news story you haven't transformed from the intent of the original, so it may not qualify as such. I would say it would come down to how much you new photo focuses on the photo in the mag.