[bmarkovic]

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.

[dredmorbius]

Both Berne and WIPO have produced multiple treaties, which go well beyond the notion of "guidelines", and are ratified by signatories within their respective national frameworks (e.g., ratified by the US Senate, as with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988).

The actual legal code conforming to treaty requirements is a matter for countries to write and adopt, but generally that's occurred.

So, disagreement in part with your categorisation of WIPO/Berne as "guidelines", which I feel grossly understates their status.

China is a member of WIPO: https://www.wipo.int/members/en/

The Berne Convention of 1971 (I'm fairly certain this is supersceded in at least part) does not appear to include authorship or originality in its properties of covered works:

The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html

Though article 3 provides that protections apply to "authors":

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/3.html