[Doctor_Fegg]

No, it isn't.

The closest that UK copyright law gets is that there's an exemption for photographs of "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". (See section 62 at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... .)

But Banksy's pictures are just straight "artistic works". There's no need to class them as "works of artistic craftsmanship" and I don't believe any court would do so.

The infringers are either deliberately misreading copyright law or simply ignorant of it. I suspect the latter.

[jtbayly]

What is the difference between works Of artistic craftsmanship and artistic works?

His works are generally permanently situated in a public place. I would think that taking a picture of any random public wall with graffiti on it is legal. But you seem to be saying that there are two kinds of art, and that the kind that is “worse” gets protection, but the better kind didn’t get protection. Very odd.

[Traster]

The germane point is that Banksy isn't claiming copyright, he's claiming a trademark. He could stop them doing this if he sued them for copyright infringement but he's choosing not to.