Drake’s officially released “Solar Eclipse” featuring Don Toliver — also being referred to as “Choosin’ Texas (Remix)” — may have arrived with an unusually consequential rights arrangement behind it. DJ Akademiks has claimed that Drake gave up his publishing share so that Ella Langley could clear the remix for release following Habibti (FOMO).

The central detail remains an allegation rather than a confirmed breakdown of the song’s credits or contracts. No terms, percentages, or documentation were provided. Still, the claim has attracted attention because it frames the release as a case where getting a fan-demanded track onto streaming mattered more than Drake retaining a share of the publishing revenue.

What is being claimed about the remix

Akademiks said persistent demand from listeners helped push the song toward an official release. He pointed to fans repeatedly requesting it in Drake’s messages and to unauthorized uploads circulating online, suggesting that the remix had built enough momentum to warrant a proper streaming rollout.

The reported arrangement is that publishing associated with Drake’s contribution would go to Langley and the producer rather than Drake.

That account should be treated carefully. Akademiks described the deal in broad terms, at one point saying Drake was giving up a portion of what would have been his publishing and at another suggesting that all publishing would go elsewhere. Those are materially different arrangements, and the available account does not settle which, if either, accurately describes the final credits.

It is also not clear whether “Solar Eclipse” and “Choosin’ Texas (Remix)” are the formal and fan-used names for precisely the same recording in every context. The reporting connects the two names directly, but does not provide an official track-credit listing that would remove every ambiguity.

Why publishing is the important word here

In music, publishing generally concerns the rights and revenue attached to the underlying composition: the song as written, rather than merely a particular recorded performance of it. It is distinct from the master recording side of a release, which is tied to the recorded audio itself.

That distinction matters because a streaming release can involve several overlapping rights questions. A performer’s appearance, a songwriter’s composition credit, a producer’s contribution, and ownership or control of the recording do not necessarily point to the same person or carry the same economic result. In plain terms, an artist can appear prominently on a track while the songwriting-related income is allocated elsewhere.

The reported deal therefore is not simply a story about Drake declining payment for a guest verse or handing over a song outright. The narrower claim is that he relinquished a publishing interest in order to make the official release possible. Without a confirmed split sheet or public credit information, though, it is not possible to say what income streams Drake may or may not still have connected to the recording.

Akademiks speculated that the song could generate several million dollars in additional revenue, with the money going to the writers involved. That figure is speculation, not an established projection, and there is no supplied evidence identifying a release forecast, streaming total, royalty rate, or specific division of proceeds.

Fan demand appears to be the practical driver

The more grounded takeaway is the reported pressure created by audience interest. Unofficial uploads can leave listeners chasing incomplete, mislabeled, or unauthorized versions of a song. An official release offers a clearer destination for fans, but it may require every relevant rights holder to agree to the terms.

That makes the alleged publishing concession notable as a practical trade-off. If the account is accurate, Drake’s camp chose the certainty of an authorized release over retaining the publishing share being discussed. It is a reminder that songs heard in livestreams, short clips, or fan reposts can be more complicated to formally release than their popularity suggests.

The situation also illustrates why listener enthusiasm does not itself answer a clearance question. A viral snippet can generate demand, but demand does not determine composition ownership, approval rights, or credit allocation. The commercial instinct may be straightforward — listeners want the song — while the rights work needed to release it can be much less visible.

Removed video footage fueled unnecessary tension talk

Before the official release, some fans interpreted a change to a re-uploaded “Solar Eclipse” video as evidence of friction between Drake and Langley. The newer upload reportedly omitted footage of Langley that had appeared in an earlier version of the visual.

There is no stated explanation for that edit. A visual change alone does not establish a dispute, and the reporting offers no direct evidence of a conflict between the two artists. The fact that Langley reportedly cleared the record cuts against the idea that the edit proves an active feud, although clearance alone cannot reveal every detail of a private creative or business relationship.

It is a useful distinction in a moment built around fragments: a removed clip is observable, while the reason for its removal is unknown. Similarly, an official release is observable, while the exact negotiations that enabled it have not been publicly laid out.

What remains unconfirmed

  • The precise publishing percentages, if any, transferred or waived.
  • Whether Drake receives revenue through other rights connected to the recording.
  • The producer or producers included in the reported arrangement.
  • The formal, complete writing and publishing credits for the released version.
  • Why Langley’s footage was omitted from the re-uploaded video.
  • Whether the reported arrangement was the sole reason the track could reach streaming.

For now, the story is best understood as a reported rights-resolution narrative, not a fully documented accounting of the remix. The confirmed practical outcome described is that the song received an official release; the most eye-catching explanation — that Drake surrendered publishing to make it happen — still rests on an unverified account.

It also lands amid wider conversations about how artists separate public personas, business decisions, and authorship. For a related look at the tension between an artist identity and the individual behind it, see Chance The Rapper’s consideration of separating “The Rapper” from the artist as a person.