As with everything in law, it depends on all of the facts.
It would probably be considered an infringement on a toy maker's copyright or trademark to photograph the copyrighted or trademarked toy and sell the photograph of the toy. Generally, it is a violation of trademark rights or copyrights to sell photographs that have recognizable trademarks, brand names or copyrighted material (such as a logo), unless permission is first granted by the holder of the copyright or trademark - although there can be some exceptions, such as if the protected material is only incidental to the shot.
In addition, by photographing copyrighted or trademarked toys without a license from the copyright/trademark holder, you may discover that you do not have a valid copyright in your own photographs.
There were two fairly recent court decisions made regarding the photographing of toys.
In one, Scrock v Learning Curve International, Inc, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 04c6927, January 29, 2008, the Court ruled that a photographer who was hired to photograph toys, and who later tried to sue for infringement over the unauthorized use of these photographs, could not sue for infringement because he had no valid copyright in the photographs.
The photographs were judged to be derivative works - works based upon preexisting material and for which the copyright holder has exclusive rights. In order to create a derivative work based on another's copyrighted work, authorization is needed first from the copyright owner.
So, your photographs of toys could be considered derivative works and in violation of the copyright holder's rights.
In Mattel Inc. v Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003), a photographer took photos of Mattel's trademarked Barbie doll interacting with various household appliances. Mattel sued the photographer for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and dilution of the trademark. Mattel lost the suit.
The Court ruled that the photographs of Barbie with the appliances were non-commercial works of art and not subject to dilution, the photographs did not suggest sponsorship by Mattel, the photographs were fair-use parodies and the Barbie doll was necessary for the parodies, and that the Barbie doll can be considered common usage and cannot be trademark-protected.
So, if your photographs are parodies they might be considered fair-use (although fair use is determined at the court level).
The bottom line is that you can have problems with your proposed photograph idea, especially if you are planning to use your photographs in a commercial manner. Without authorization from the copyright/trademark holders, you, one, may not have a valid copyright in the photographs you take and, two, you could be sued for infringement.
If your intent is to make money from the sale of your photographs, you should contact the holders of the rights to the toys and obtain a license.
