Drake is back with his infamous, bar-filled Instagram captions this week. However, it’s not just that. He’s also sporting an all-new hairdo in some photos that are seemingly from a recent studio session. Of course, this is driving excitement amid the preparation of ICEMAN, which is rumored to drop this year.

It’s fitting that there’s a shot of a massive screen that displays the construction of an audio file, which is hopefully a track for the album. The project doesn’t have a confirmed timeline. All we have to go off of is Johnny Manziel, who claimed that it was going to arrive in late October or early November in August.

Now that we are about to be at the halfway point of the month it’s clear that we may not get it at all this year.

But as for Drake’s new do, some are calling his curly hair the “benny blanco” look. It’s quite frankly a pretty accurate comparison if you look at the artists side-by-side. As for the caption, it’s as cryptic as you would expect it to be. “To each their own…unless of course they lease and don’t own,” it reads per Kurrco.

That’s an interesting thing to post, especially at this current juncture.

Drake “What Did I Miss?” Lawsuit

If you didn’t hear, AllHipHop came through with an exclusive report about The Boy getting hit with a federal copyright lawsuit this week.

It comes from renowned Italian photographer Gabriele Galimberti, a longtime contributor to National Geographic. One of his most acclaimed works is his “Amerigun” collection, which displays Americans displaying their massive collection of firearms in artful ways.

Galimberti accuses Drake of copying every aspect of his work in the “What Did I Miss?” visual. For about a minute-and-a-half of the four-minute-long video, Drake recreates one of Galimberti’s “Amerigun” portraits of man laying out his guns by a pool.

Whether or not The Boy did so intentionally remains to be seen in federal court. Galimberti is suing the artist, OVO Sound, Republic Records, Universal Music Group, and other unnamed defendants. He’s seeking damages, profits, and an injunction stopping further distribution of the video.Â