WIPO / Berne rules are guidelines. Not even in the Western Europe which aims for "feature parity" with US copyright laws are things the same (case in point: treatment of copyright and patent ownership of things invented while employed, yet not at work or in relation to work).
So they simply do not apply even broadly to a case that was processed in China, especially not in the level of deep US-centric scrutiny you applied to it.
That said, I don't see any of the "multiple test" this ruling fails. It has simply posited that verbatim copying of the article published on one website to another website without prior agreement is still copyright infringement, regardless of the fact that the article itself was generated by software/AI. Nothing more, nothing less.
I find it hard to imagine that a court in any other country would rule any differently.
So they simply do not apply even broadly to a case that was processed in China, especially not in the level of deep US-centric scrutiny you applied to it.
That said, I don't see any of the "multiple test" this ruling fails. It has simply posited that verbatim copying of the article published on one website to another website without prior agreement is still copyright infringement, regardless of the fact that the article itself was generated by software/AI. Nothing more, nothing less.
I find it hard to imagine that a court in any other country would rule any differently.