Tupac’s Estate Wins In “Makaveli” Cover Art Lawsuit

Despite being nearly 30 years since his death, Tupac’s catalog and likeness continue to be at the center of several legal battles. In fact, his estate has faced several strange lawsuits and requests over the years. In October, an inmate at San Carlos Correctional Facility in Colorado demanded access to the late rapper’s estate because he is Tupac reincarnated. That claim didn’t necessarily go far but there have been a few lawsuits that have made their way through the court.

‘Pac’s image, specifically, became part of a lawsuit in recent times. Artist Ronald Brent, the Zelus Group and Leslie Ware filed a lawsuit against ‘Pac’s estate and Amaru Entertainment over the cover art for The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, also known as Makaveli. The lawsuit claimed Ware was the rightful owner of the painting that served as the cover art for ‘Pac’s final album. The plaintiffs claimed Ware was the sole owner of the artwork after scoring the original painting from an auction.

Judge Rules In Favor Of Tupac’s Estate

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tupac Shakur (@2pac)

The lawsuit stated Brent as the original owner of the painting up until 2012, when he allegedly sold the piece to a third party who then sold it to Zelus Group in 2021 before landing in Ware’s possession. Tupac’s estate fired back at the suit, claiming Brent was an employee of Death Row Records and never had ownership in the first place. They said the artwork belonged to Death Row Records. “By contrast, Amaru contends that Brent never ‘owned’ the Makaveli painting or image to begin with,” the ruling read, per Baller Alert. “Rather, because Brent was an employee for DDR, Amaru alleges that ownership of the painting and image stayed with DRR.”

Though the piece remains in Ware’s home, Judge Boyle ruled in the favor of Tupac’s estate, largely because they do not have jurisdiction over Amaru Entertainment. “Plaintiffs seek to hale Amaru to the Northern District of Texas for declaration as to the ownership and copyright of the Painting and Image, and their action is against Amaru directly and personally,” Judge Boyle wrote. “To conclude that the Court could assert jurisdiction over Amaru merely because of the painting’s presence in Texas would place ancient forms over modern notions of due process.”

[via]