Tupac's estate v. Drake: the AI diss track that tested publicity rights for the dead

On 24 April 2024, Howard King, a lawyer for Tupac Shakur's estate, sent Drake a cease-and-desist letter over "Taylor Made Freestyle", a diss track aimed at Kendrick Lamar that used AI-generated vocals imitating Shakur and Snoop Dogg. Drake had posted it on Instagram the previous Friday, 19 April. It was not on streaming services.

The letter gave him 24 hours to take it down, or the estate would "pursue all of its legal remedies", as NBC News reported it. By Thursday, 25 April, the track was gone from Drake's Instagram and X accounts. His spokesperson declined to comment. We found no report that the estate went on to sue. The dispute ended before any court weighed in, so what follows is about leverage, not a ruling.

What did the estate actually claim?

According to NBC News, the letter made two arguments. The first was that the track violated Shakur's right of publicity, the right to control commercial use of a person's identity. The second was that it gave a false impression that the estate endorsed the lyrics. It asked for all profits from the record plus damages for economic and reputational harm. King called the track a "blatant abuse" of Shakur's legacy and wrote that the estate "would never have given its approval for this use." Stereogum reported that the letter grounded the claim in California law, without naming a statute.

The letter also mentioned "Heart on My Sleeve", the 2023 AI track that faked Drake's own voice and was pulled from streaming services. The estate was pointing out that Drake had been on the other side of this.

How strong was that claim in April 2024?

Weaker than the 24-hour deadline suggested. California's post-mortem publicity statute, Civil Code §3344.1, protects a dead person's name, voice and likeness for 70 years after death. But it applied to use on products and merchandise, or in advertising. It expressly excluded "expressive works", a list that included musical compositions and audiovisual works, as the California Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis set out. SAG-AFTRA, the union that went on to sponsor a fix, told the committee that non-consensual digital replicas of dead performers in recordings were "arguably permitted" under the law as written.

A diss track posted to social media is about as clearly a musical work as anything gets. It also wasn't on sale or on streaming, which would have made the estate's demand for profits hard to put a number on. The false-endorsement argument was more promising, because it doesn't depend on the publicity statute's carve-outs. Even so, it would have needed proof that listeners thought the estate had approved a track that was obviously a stunt in a public feud.

What changed with AB 1836?

California closed much of the gap five months later. Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1836 on 17 September 2024. His office described it as barring commercial use of digital replicas of dead performers without consent from their estates. According to a summary of the enacted law by the firm Manatt, it took effect on 1 January 2025. Anyone who produces, distributes or makes available a digital replica of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without consent is liable for the greater of $10,000 or the rights holder's actual damages. Uses are exempt for news reports, for comment, criticism or parody, for fleeting or incidental uses, and for historical or biographical purposes, as long as the replica isn't passed off as an authentic recording.

So, under today's California law, a "Taylor Made Freestyle" posted without consent would be squarely in scope. The music exemption that weakened the estate's hand in 2024 no longer covers a cloned voice.

What we think

The estate got what it wanted from leverage, not from law. Drake had every reason not to fight: a public feud he was trying to win, a track he could live without, and his own history as the target of "Heart on My Sleeve". An unknown producer facing the same letter would fold too, out of fear of legal fees. The lesson for artists is that, in 2024, a cease-and-desist did most of the work that statutes did not.

AB 1836 makes that leverage real, but don't overstate what estates can now stop. The parody and commentary exemption is the next fight. Drake's lawyers would have argued that a diss track is commentary. The estate would have answered that the track borrowed Shakur's voice to attack Kendrick Lamar, not to comment on Shakur. That second reading is the stronger one, since parody usually targets its source, but nothing in the statute settles it. The $10,000 minimum is also small next to a major artist's budget. Most of the law's force will come from the takedown pressure behind it, as it did here.

Estates still can't stop human soundalikes, which fall outside a "digital replica" law. They can't stop copies already spread across the internet. And outside states with similar laws, they have much less to work with. That patchwork is why a federal floor matters, and why the long wait for one leaves the dead, and the living, with uneven protection.

The detail we keep coming back to is Snoop Dogg. He is alive, his voice was cloned on the same track, and his public reaction was to joke about it: "They did what? When? How? Are you sure?" A living artist can laugh off a clone or license one. A dead artist can't do either, which is the whole case for giving estates a say over a voice that no longer has its owner to speak for it.

Sources

• NBC News, Tupac Shakur's estate threatens to sue Drake over AI use in diss track (24 Apr 2024)
• NBC News, Drake pulls 'Taylor Made Freestyle' after Tupac estate threatens action (26 Apr 2024)
• TIME, Drake Removes Diss Track With AI-Generated Tupac Vocals (26 Apr 2024)
• XXL, Drake Removes 'Taylor Made Freestyle' Following Threat of Lawsuit (26 Apr 2024)
• Stereogum, Tupac Shakur Estate Threatens Drake With Legal Action Over AI Diss Track (24 Apr 2024)
• California Senate Judiciary Committee, AB 1836 (Bauer-Kahan) bill analysis (hearing 2 Jul 2024)
• Office of the Governor of California, Governor Newsom signs bills to protect digital likeness of performers (17 Sep 2024)
• Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, California Enacts a Host of New AI and Digital Replica Laws