Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ first claim. Defendants attack this claim on numerous fronts. They argue that no such right exists under Michigan law and that the claim is preempted by the First Amendment and by the Copyright Act. The Court will address each argument separately. 1. Right of Publicity Under Michigan Law Plaintiffs’ right of publicity claim is governed by state law. Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437, 459 (6th Cir.2003). Michigan has recognized a general right to publicity. See, e.g., Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831, 834 (6th Cir.1983) (suggesting that Michigan courts would adopt the right of publicity and noting that Michigan has recognized a right of privacy); Tobin v. Mich. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 416 Mich. 661, 331 N.W.2d 184, 189 (1982) . Michigan never has recognized, however, a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants use of a models likeness in connection with the packaging and promotion of its hair care product violated the right of publicity
B. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
C. recognizing protection against appropriation for the defendants advantage of the plaintiffs name or likeness
D. recognizing that the act of exploitation may itself imbue someones likeness with commercial value
E. holding that when a plaintiffs name and identity are used without intent to obtain a commercial advantage but where they are used for some other purpose the use is incidental and does not violate the right of publicity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.