“… when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video's messages to the videographer,” wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that “the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.”
This is a totally irrelevant point. The judge either lacks basic logical thought capability or is deliberately confusing the issue. Probably the latter but who knows.
“… when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video’s messages to the videographer,” wrote Judge Tunheim, adding that “the Larsens can easily disclaim personal sponsorship of the messages depicted in the wedding videos they create for clients.”
No one should be able to be compelled to produce art for another. Sale of an on-hand blank or generic tape/DVD? Sure.