Plagiarism - Lana Del Ray vs. Radiohead
Both of them are taking inspiration from that 1960s easy listening surf music stuff. Lana adds some cowboy twang to her style. The chord progressions are standard, as are the licks. Both groups trying to copy the sound of a particular era results in similar sounding songs since they both sound like the originals they are modeling.
So I say no infringement, but that won't stop lots of money having to be spent on legal fees.
Lana says it wasn't inspired by theirs but to be nice she offered them 40% of royalties, Radiohead wanted 100% and only 100%.
Legally, having consented to pay 40%, Lana is screwed since any jury will see that as an admission of guilt. Radiohead's 100% royalties position is bullshit though, as is their claim her song is a rip off. Of interest of course is that Radiohead has already been sued by The Hollies since Creep is a near exact copy of their 1972 hit "The Air That I Breathe". Radiohead in that case settled!
So the Hollies is (perhaps) the original author of both works, and has a case against Lana, but Radiohead does NOT. Actually the Hollies don't have much of a case other than same chord progression and some licks.
Also check out Lennon's "Across the Universe" if you want to see who the Hollies were ripping off.
Who cares? Let the stupid musicians squabble over the royalties to their songs. How they even make any money anymore? Ad revenue from YouTube? No one with any brains has paid for music in the last 25 years.
Eventually, every possible chord/note combination will be copyrighted. What happens then? Lawsuits where the plaintiff claims that your "new" song copies a song/jingle the the plaintiff copyrighted 600 years ago?
Not any more. Especially since Disney keeps funding/bribing Congress to extend copyrights so that the mouse will never become public domain. Nothing copyrighted in the US after 1923 will ever expire.