Well, to be honest, I think the problem of agency is somewhat irrelevant where the economics of the art market are concerned. Most people don't really care how art is produced as long as it looks nice on the wall. This is why cheap reproductions of art were sold at places like K-Mart or other 'budget' retailers. And let's not forget that Warhol was notorious for playing with the idea of where was the boundary between artist and finished work, allowing some of his 'factory' staff to do the work involved. Yet one of his most famous works just set a record price at auction. So when it comes to the value of art, people don't really care about the reality so long as the prestige pedigree of the art is reinforced.
What's more, most classic artists were more than what the modern term 'artist' implies. They were manufacturers of art media as well as painters or sculptors or what have you. Warhol was certainly not new to this idea of a factory art setting. And since most classic artists trained apprentices, it's a fair bet that some of the works attributed to classic artists were in fact done, in whole or in part, by their helpers. Yet no one who buys a Goya, for instance, will actually care about this fact so long as Goya's signature is on the piece.
The idea of agency in art creation is important. I'm not trying to minimize that discussion. It's just that when the idea of AI generated art comes up, I see it less as a philosophical matter and more as a socio-economic question. "How many aspects of the human condition are we going to be allowed to be replaced by automation before we stop and say it's more important to be genuinely human than to prioritize money?"
As far as the question of agency goes, however, someone created the computer code which allowed you to plug in your ideas for the art eventually generated by the AI, so yes, I think all that AI art belongs to someone, but the other implications make the importance of that someone largely irrelevant. The AI was guided but it created the art in the end. It's like the nuclear bomb question. Who really deserves shame for the tragedies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Oppenheimer invented the bomb, but he didn't give the orders to drop them. The crews of the planes dropped the bombs but they didn't give the orders to deploy them. The government facilitated the use of the weapons but didn't create them or drop them...
I do think what you say in regard to the evolution of reproduction is valid. Humans are not sophisticated creatures. They value their own entertainment above any notions of fairness toward content creators. This is why Napster was so easily able to upend the traditional business model of the music industry just over twenty years ago. So it's not so much a problem of reproduction in my mind as it is a problem of respect for genuine effort on the part of creators by the end consumer.
As far as the licensing of prints goes, the artist must approve the license and will reap the monetary benefits of that license. So I can't really say too much against that practice. My only concern is that AI art isn't so embraced that it eliminates the potential for small artists to derive income from their effort.
