Listen for yourself:
I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your own, why is a re-imagining which builds upon and modifies the original illegal?
Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.
If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are ahead for all musicians.
"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."
What happens in the print world when a the idea of a "revenge fantasy" becomes copyrightable? When the use of certain chord progressions can cost you the revenue from a particular song? When a movie containing "triumph in the face of adversity through superhuman powers" can't be done because someone else did it first?
It's worth remembering that nobody knows the original composer of the "Superman" theme. While John Williams is credited with arranging the cinematic version, his arrangement was based on the television show theme. That theme was purchased sans-crédit from a French artist via a system intentionally architected to leverage the at-the-time gaps in international law to minimize Hollywood's cost burden for music scores.
To maintain this protection, they intentionally did not track the pedigree of the theme. This is a loss for history.
Also, I've seen lots of commentary from supposed experts in the field that have concluded the opposite.
not a formal analysis, just the comment before mine :)