rights within the scope of federal copyright.” Thus, Plaintiffs state law claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices is preempted by copyright law, and the court should dismiss this claim. Accord Iconbazaar, L.L.C. v. Am. Online, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d 630, 637 (M.D.N.C.2004) (finding a claim under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 preempted by copyright law and stating: “While there may be extra elements of fraud or deceit in any given unfair trade practices claim, there are no additional elements required in order to state an unfair trade practices claim than there are required to state a copyright claim. Accordingly, the state law claim is preempted by federal copyright law.”) (emphasis in original); see also Microstrategy, Inc. v. Netsolve, Inc., 368 F.Supp.2d 533, 535 (E.D.Va.2005) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff contends, however, that he alleges
recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession holding preemption is appropriate where unjust enrichment claim does not allege that the defendants were enriched by anything other than copyright infringement