Attribution on or off a work is not an indication of legal or infringing work.
Maybe a pencil drawing is considered "transformative" enough...
IMO, prob not. It more likely a case where itís just not worth it to go after these small businesses or they just donít know about it to decide to do something about it. However in the saderup case (three stooges), I believe that his charcoal drawing was found to be transformative enough to not violate copyrights (right of publicity is another story)
Depending on the state, celebs have very limited remedies even if they win. The most common is to stop the infringing use of the image. The second is for damages, but thatís always hard to prove. There was a recent right of publicity case with Andy Griffin where he lost in large part because there was no damages to speak of. Because Andy made only 5k off his name in the last half decade, it was unlikely that the use of his image did any financial harm.
Personally, I'd ask the owner or employee what was up. Usually a buisness in a malls would not risk doing anything blatantly illegal. Id be interested if there was a licence available or legal advise/exeptions that they felt applied.