Of course, "proof of ownership" with generative art isn't, because pure generative art is ineligible for copyright protection (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...).
E.g. are the artists who worked on Flow (2024) no longer artists because the resulting images are generated rather than drawn? Most people would disagree, and hold/put forth a very different definition as a result, given even they were already credited as the artists on the piece before I asked the question.
Even the arguments in the courts about AI, which is a very different kind of "generated" output, stuck to showing the outputs can't be copyrighted rather than trying to argue whether the outputs were still art as the problem.