With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case where a citizen was denied any access to the law as adopted by the municipalities in question. The Court further finds that this is not a case where a citizen desired to photocopy the codes at a municipal office and was denied that access. The Court further finds that this is not a case where Mr. Veeck simply copied the codes from the municipal offices and SBCCI now seeks to prevent that action. Rather, Mr. Veeck ordered the SBCCI standardized codes directly from SBCCI and published those specifically copyrighted works on the Internet. B. Fact/Idea-Expression Merger Similarly, the Court finds that the fact/idea-expression merger proposed by Mr. Veeck is not appropriate to this case. See American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association, 126 F.3d 977, 979 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). A copyright protects the

A: 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
B: holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan
C: holding that a drawing containing several uncopyrightable public domain elements was entitled to copyright protection because the elements were selected coordinated and arranged in such a way as to render the work original
D: holding dental associations taxonomy was original work of authorship entitled to copyright protection and taxonomy was not uncopyrightable system and stating the codes descriptions dont merge with the facts any more than a scientific description of butterfly attributes is part of a butterfly
D.