In Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 606 F3d 1153, 1158 [9th Cir 2010], reh en banc granted 623 F3d 912 [2010], the Ninth Circuit took pains to distinguish between a claim for breach of an implied promise to pay for the use of an idea, which its prior opinion in Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F3d 965, 967 [9th Cir 2004] had held was not preempted, and the claim at issue in Montz for breach of an implied promise not to use the plaintiffs' ideas without their consent. The court held the latter preempted because it "violated the plaintiffs' exclusive rights to use and to authorize use of their work--rights equivalent to those of copyright owners." Noting that the plaintiffs also alleged a right to compensation for the use of their ideas, the court nevertheless held that "the mere mention of such a right ... is not enough to 'qualitatively distinguish' the plaintiffs' breach-of-implied-contract claim from a copyright claim. The plaintiffs expected to receive a share of the profits and credit for use of their work, but only because they expected, as any copyright owner would, that their work would not be used without their permission." (Id.)