With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to use the articles insofar as they were incorporated in the manuscript, for without such a license, Oddo’s contribution to the partnership venture would have been of minimal value.”). Alternatively, it is also arguable that the book itself constitutes a “joint work” within the meaning of the Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“A ‘joint work’ is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”). This would also mean that Wallenfang’s claim would fail since “[t]he authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work,” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), and a joint copyright owner cannot sue his or her co-owner for infringement. See Donna v. Dodd, Mead & Co., 374 F.Supp. 429, 430 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (<HOLDING>). Under either scenario, Wallenfang’s copyright

A: holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the tcpa
B: holding that fees are not recoverable for work for which the client could not be charged
C: holding that childrens book for which plaintiff provided the text and defendant provided the illustrated photographs was a joint work in which each party owned an undivided ownership and thus neither could be held liable to the other for copyright infringement
D: holding that where codefendants conducted a joint defense that provided a benefit to each defendant the joint services represented fair consideration for the payment of reasonable compensation regardless of which defendant paid the bill
C.