Wu-Tang Clan founder and hip-hop producer RZA (Robert Diggs) is facing a new lawsuit from former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli, who alleges that RZA and co-producer Cilvaringz improperly sold the same copyright interests in the rare album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin to multiple parties.
Shkreli, who originally purchased the single-copy album in 2015, filed a countersuit in federal court claiming that his original deal granted him a substantial share of the album’s copyright — rights he says were later resold when the album was auctioned to the digital art collective PleasrDAO following the government’s seizure of the project.
Allegations of “Duplicate Sale”
According to court filings, Shkreli contends that his original agreement provided him with 50 percent of the album’s copyright immediately, with the remaining 50 percent to transfer at a later date. He alleges that RZA and Cilvaringz subsequently sold those same rights to PleasrDAO, effectively assigning more than 100 percent of the album’s copyright.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment recognizing Shkreli’s claimed ownership stake, along with unspecified damages.
A Singular Album with a Complicated History
Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was conceived as a conceptual art piece — a single physical copy of an album designed to challenge modern ideas of music consumption and value. Its sale to Shkreli in 2015 drew global attention, as did the strict limitations placed on its commercial release.
After Shkreli’s 2017 conviction on securities fraud charges, federal authorities seized the album and later sold it to PleasrDAO to help satisfy restitution obligations. PleasrDAO has since accused Shkreli of breaching the original contract by sharing portions of the album publicly, leading to earlier legal battles.
No Public Response from RZA
As of now, representatives for RZA and Cilvaringz have not publicly commented on the new lawsuit. PleasrDAO has previously dismissed Shkreli’s legal claims as baseless and has indicated confidence that the courts will side with them.
Broader Industry Implications
Legal experts say the dispute underscores the growing complexity of intellectual property ownership in an era where music, fine art, and digital assets increasingly overlap. The case could help clarify how unconventional art sales and future-dated ownership clauses are interpreted under copyright law.
The court has not yet set a trial date, but the outcome could shape how rare and conceptual music projects are bought, sold, and protected moving forward.
