Oooh, I hope so!
This makes me mad! Page 2
Hmm the Honey Monster shares a flat, with an attractive young guy. They sing in a sweetly effete way to their breakfast. Bit of a "funny monster," don't you think? More of a big yellow, gay monster.
Quote: sootyj @ March 19, 2008, 5:24 PMMore of a big yellow, gay monster.
Has anyone said Bummy Monster yet?
Why do you mention Zippy, and Bungle, but not Geoffery, Or that dodgy guy with the basin haircut?
Shoot going off topic.
It doesn't have to be an exact copy, check out this similar story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6289933.stm
"Tell them about the bummy mummy."
Now that is just way to disturbing.
Regardless of the 'whether it's an exact copy' debate, it is blindingly obvious that the makers of the ad watched the boosh crimps and thought 'we'll have a bit of that'. There is absolutely no way anyone could claim it is a coincidence.
Which in itself is naughty enough, I think.
Hang on, isn't crimping a style of music? Regardless of who invented it, surely you can't copyright styles of music? Surely all music starts off this way. Hip-hop, Jazz etc must of started somewhere. It would be different if they had taken exact lyrics or an exact melody but they haven't.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The life motto of plagiarists everywhere!
You'll find the key element (imo) in the RatherGood story here:
"The band argued Coke USED THE SONG 'Ninja' (and its distinctive kitten-filled video) without permission in a South American advert."
Note: the band claimed Coke used their SONG.
It is the similarity between the songs that will have scared off Coke. If the judge also thought the song was ripped-off (lyrics or melody) then Coke were going to loose. The judge could also have decided that similar animation elements was further evidence that the song had been lifted. Either way, Coke clearly felt that the copyrighted parts of the band's song were too similar to risk court.
But it is also clear that it was the song and / or the animation which was under contention as being stolen, and not the song's STYLE. Having various similar elements isn't proof of stealing a song, although it points to an awareness of the work under question. In the music legal cases I've been aware of, the case rests on the copyrighted parts: melody and lyrics. If the two songs aren't the same then the case will fail, no matter how similar in style (Take Country and Western as an example of a highly stylised and similar sounding genre). If the songs are the same (musicologists will argue over each note, duration, and interval BUT you can't be sued for cord change similarities) then playing it in different styles or with different instruments won't save your ass.
Yeah, they may not be able to prove legally that they copied it.
But we all know they did it.
If you know what I mean..?
That they copied the style, yes. But in that we're all guilty. 
Yes.
But most of us hide it a hell of a lot better. 
I hope I never have an idea stolen and used by a brand name
That Sacla ad annoys me a lot more than this for shamelessly ripping someone off. I hope they gave the guy some money for nicking his idea.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd8j0Twc8S4
God, I hate both the advert and the Boosh.
It seems to me if your material is being ripped off for a f**king Sugar Puffs advert then you ought to start thinking about new stuff.
It's nothing to be proud of in claiming it's theirs, just embarrassing.
MORE IMPORTANTLY:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M-mR7kR2vcg
I've found it. Finally.
This ad used to shit me up big time as a kid. And who knew it was Norman Lovett doing the sting at the end.
We won't have hardly any music or art if we weren't allowed to be inspired by others. Its a complete over-reaction.