With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the same protection that was given to technical drawings before the enactment of the AWCPA. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-735 at 19 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6952. C. Copyright Infringement I. Manufacturing of the MPG Travel Trailer The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for copyright infringement with respect to the Defendant’s use of copies of the Floor Plans to manufacture its MPG travel trailer. The Defendant asserts that even when a plaintiff holds a copyright in a graphic drawing of a useful article, others are not precluded from manufacturing and marketing the article itself. Gusler v. Fischer 580 F.Supp.2d 309, 315 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Niemi v. Am. Axle Mfg. & Holding Inc., No. 05-74210, 2006 WL 2077590, at *3 (E.D.Mich. July 24, 2006) (<HOLDING>). This is known as the useful article

A: holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement
B: holding that the use of copies or derivatives of copies of copyrighted technical drawings to manufacture a machine did not constitute an act of copyright infringement
C: holding that the manufacture of a machine from a copyrighted technical drawing is clearly not copyright infringement
D: holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original
C.