That is not an established precedent. (It's not what that case decided.)

Its not specifically established but its the only compatible ruling that the law can really make here. There is a lot of very similar precedence, there was a legaleagle on this which went through the likely legal outcome

Given a nation* that decides "corporations are people" and "money is speech", let's not be unduly optimistic about (even temporary) legislation or interpretation.

* focusing on the US given this site and the outsized influence it has on global copyright

Corporate personhood is a common legal practice, where necessary the law distinguishes between "persons" and "natural persons".

That's the same in the US/UK/AU/NZ/CA/DE/JP/IN.

The difference in the US is that SCOTUS basically made it impossible to restrict corporate spending on politics. That is what needs to be fixed in the US, not Corporate Personhood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

But neither is the opposite.

"that is not an established precedent" in response to a specific claim and "there is no established precedent" can both be true without laying down a verbose foundation of caveats

Unless there is significant human input and guidance. But IANAL.