I am really bad at still lifes. That is, I never even attempted making one. So I decided to try and make a photo of freshly baked bread. I stumbled across a few amazing shots on the Internet which I want to repeat. If I ever published my photo, would it be considered plagiarism? In the end, all I want to do is to copy with my own tools a photograph I have found online.
If I have tried to replicate another photograph, with the same utensils and composition, could mine be considered plagiarism?
There is a long, time-honoured tradition in the art world of learning by copying. In fact, in bygone days one would have trouble walking through an art museum because of all of the easels set up. (These days it isn't allowed, mostly because of tripping hazards, wet paint and liability issues, not because of the copying thing.) But publishing is another matter. Even when the original work has slipped into the public domain (or is under a CC0 license), it would be considered bad form to pass the copy off as an original. Tradition holds that faithful copies be published with a title something like "Study after [original artist]", even though in such cases you actually may hold all rights in your copy.
It gets more complicated with works under current copyright. If you have created a faithful copy, you may not hold usable rights in the image (or other work). That would depend on obtaining the right (license) to create a derivative of the work you are copying. It's really, really hard to claim accidental similarity if you've used the same subject, the same lighting, the same major composition and the same props and utensils in the same positions. It's no different, really, than creating a drawing of a photograph — it's still a derivative work, even if you've used a different medium to create the derivative. If you're proud enough of what you've done to consider publishing, then you'll probably need to get permission from the original photographer. And don't be surprised if any grant of license prohibits commercial use.
The object of the game, though, shouldn't be to copy for the sake of copying, but copying to understand. Why does that arrangement of elements look attractive? What is it about the lighting, the point of view, the field of view, etc., that makes the elements of the picture look that way? How can I apply that to my own work? When you've taken in the lessons learned and applied them to your own original work, then you've got something you can take real pride in. More than that, you've demonstrated to yourself (and can demonstrate to others, including potential clients) that you understand lighting, composition and camera settings well enough to create similar (not identical) images on demand. And that's what the lessons of copying are meant to provide.
It's not plagiarism if you give proper credit. If you see a still life, reconstruct and photograph it yourself, and then hand the resulting photo in to your photography instructor as your own work, or publish it in a book without properly attributing the original, that's plagiarism. If you're up front about the fact that you reproduced someone else's composition and cite the source, that's not plagiarism.
You might or might not still be violating the original photographer's copyright on the composition, but that's not what you asked about.
Yes, it could be considered plagiarism, and a breach of copyrights.
See this similar case.
I'm not an expert on copyright matter, but AFAIK, whenever you get an idea, you have copyright for that idea. That doesn't mean that others can not come up with the same idea. So in the aforementioned case, the ruling part judged that the image was so similar, that it wasn't just another photographer having the same idea, but was in fact a copy of the original idea.
The same principle is apparent in music. You cannot reproduce someone else's song without permission.
This sort of copyright is referred to as "intellectual copyright" if I'm not mistaken. This should not be confused with "mechanical copyright", which is the copyright of the actual production of the idea, I.e. an image in print or a music CD.
