No, your website example is not enough proof that they own something, not even close. It's simple - if there is not a good relationship between the token and the digital art, then the entire market will collapse and be worth almost nothing. If you can actually own digital art as a unique buyer, then there is value. In your example the website IS the object. But owning a digital token is not owning the digital art. It's like owning a piece of paper that says you own gold, versus actually owning gold. They are not both the same thing.
Maybe it's just like a license and anyone else in the digital space or we often call it Internet can't really use the image without your approval and the file is sent through private like emails or etc though I wonder how's the practice of enforcing the law with these NFTs, are they really useful as a proof of ownership?
That has been the case for regular paintings as well but that didn't stop the original ones being worth money. DO not get me wrong I do not think that these things worth this much money, and I think in a year this will worth probably under a million dollars, or maybe a bit more because it was the most expensive at one time but that was about it. However one thing is for sure, if we are talking about owning rights to a painting that would be enough.
Let me put it this way, you have seen the painting of mona lisa right? How many times did you see the original painting and how many times did you see it out of the original painting (like jpg, google, online, tv shows, movies etc etc)? You will realize that sure it could be seen everywhere and you can just share it on google everywhere, hell we have seen this beeple thingy here as well as other places, so we all know we can share it, yet it still worths money just like how real mona lisa still worths money.
. 
