This application of copyright law is properly ridiculous and wouldn't stand in a court with a sensible judge.
A definition of the word "copy" yields (New Oxford American Dictionary):
1 a thing made to be similar or identical to another
2 a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue
3 matter to be printed
Therefore, in that context, the first definition applies. A copy of something, by definition, implies that one should be able to use it in the same ways as the original (being similar or identical).
In the case of a dish, taking a picture cannot hence be considered a copy since I can eat the original, but not the picture (even less so when it's digital). What definition of similar can actually lead to consider that a picture (even more a digital one) is even remotely "similar" to plate with food in it no matter how beautifully arranged?
Likewise, merely taking a picture of a building won't provide me with a roof, and how can it be a copy?
This is somehow illustrated by Magritte's 1948 painting of a (smoking) pipe: "ceci n'est pas une pipe"
http://tinyurl.com/owclu9e
To conclude, it seems that everything revolving around copyright nowadays has become lightyears more surrealistic than one of the leading surrealist painters of the twentieth century.