Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
17 U.S.C. § 102). It then noted that "[elffort expended to create the Tentative Map and supporting documents is effort expended to create tangible: works of authorship," and "[als such, ... [was] within the scope of copyright protection." Id. (citing Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F.Supp. 1523, 1535 (S.D.N.Y.1985)). Turning to the second prong-the extra-element test-the court noted that the development company's allegation that its former employee had breached her fiduciary duty by giving the map to its competitor did not "change[] the nature of [its] action'" but rather simply restated a copyright claim. Id. at 977. Accordingly the "unfair competition claim for misappropriation of ... time and effort expended in producing t *1, *5 (Mich.App. Sept. 22, 2005) (per curiam) ; Editorial Photocolor Archives, Inc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in suit between sellers of historic photographs copyright act preempted state law claim based on right to exclusive reproduction of photographs
B. holding that even if utah law recognized tort of misappropriation such a claim would be preempted by copyright act
C. 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
D. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.