With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ed.2009). Alaskasland cited this definition in its opposition to the Realtors' motion to dismiss and in its summary judgment opposition, relied on a similar definition in its motion for partial summary judgment, and repeats these three elements to us on appeal. 24 . See infra Section IV.B. 25 . 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). 26 . See 17 U.S.C. § 101. 27 . 'This is similar to the argument in Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., involving a real estate development company that brought misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims based on allegations that a competitor had misappropriated a tentative subdivision map, "supporting documents, an Wedgwood, 601 F.Supp. at 1535. 31 . 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(5), 106(1), (3), (5), 301(a). See also Ehat v. Tanner, 780 F.2d 876, 878 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 32 . To claim infringement one must first

A: holding that even if utah law recognized tort of misappropriation such a claim would be preempted by copyright act
B: holding misappropriation claim by real estate information service provider against website using services photographs was preempted by copyright act because claim had no extra element
C: holding copyright act preempted photographers misappropriation claim when claim did not have extra element such as breach of fiduciary duty
D: holding in suit between film and photograph archive companies that copyright act preempted misappropriation claim and pllaintiffs could not by nsiscasting their causes of action secure the equivalent of copyright protection under guise of state law
A.