I think that to comment on the theme of originality in the age of electronic reproduction is quite challenging. We’d need to discern why some images become more appreciated and as a consequence financially valued in the art market and others don’t. I'll like to use the work of andreas gurski as an example

For example: the photographs of Andreas Gursky have become so valuable, 600,000 at auction. He’s a special case because he does a limited edition of 6; three of them are going to museums: MOMA, Tate and other…there are now three left, exactly the same as the one at the museums, collectors grab them because there is the added curatorial benefit of a great art institution. In this case every one is considered an original even if there are six around. Now, why are there so attractive to begin with? First of all, there are huge. They measure, on average, 80 x 200 inches. Second of all, there are very pictorial. Even thought Gursky is the master of using digital photography his works often evokes historical art. His work, besides the grand scale, tends to pictorial compositions, even to narrative themes, in ways that often align it with figurative painting more closely than with un-manipulated or straight photography.
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2001/gursky

His work has become “unique” because his images represent “hyperspace” characteristic of global capitalism both at work and at play that makes his work approachable and popular at museums. We can also add that his works have that special aura, because they have a prescence that envelopes the viewer.