I can't help but think of the correlation between the original intent of "Freedom of the Press" which was literally, if you had a printing press in the back room in a two horse town, you could pretty much print anything truthful and distribute it among the public as long as you are not infringing upon another person's rights. I can't think of a better example of those early days of journalism than the blogs we all know and love today
No legal background here. But my brother plays a lawyer in court.
I think the question will be:
Is a plate of food sold to another, with the intention that the purchasing party means to consume the plate of food and it is a one of a kind production for the person purchasing it, and it will go away with the consumption of said plate of food by the purchaser, worthy of copyright protection? Or does the purchaser now own the plate of food? Surely no human being would argue that every plate that leaves the kitchen is perfectly uniform.
I don't think the precedent will be set with a picture of a plate of food from a restaurant. I mean, copyrighting a plate of food, is nearly as silly as copyrighting some of the recipes I have seen. Is it derivative? Did the creator actually create something new and unique? Did the creator actually create the plate of food on their own, or "borrow" from other sources? Or is it something that someone else cooked a billion times before and fed to their families, and yeah that sauce could have fallen exactly like that on the plate a billion times before? etc. etc.
At the risk of being deleted, I think the precedent in the courts concerning if bloggers are "press" (which means to me the ability to publish) or not will be settled over much bigger issues than a plate of fish. Probably something sickeningly political, but an important precedent to address, nevertheless.
I have worked as a copy writer. I have the utmost respect for copyright law, and it is there for a reason.
I am rooting for the little guys on the blogs. But, I am prone to that.