Background
Artificial intelligence has been a very disruptive and transformative force in the film and creative industries. Amongst others, the tools of AI have found use in film production areas like post-production de-aging, bio-linguistic dubbing, full performance generation of virtual actors, and storyline editing without conventional reshooting. While the technologies invite some lucrative business opportunities, they raise the issues of copyright, artistic integrity, and share of power between producers and artistic contributors.
The controversy like in ‘Raanjhanaa’ (2013) directed by Aanand L Rai and starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor represents this tension. The film was originally in Hindi but dubbed into Tamil as Ambikapathy.[i] For re-release, Eros International-the producer of the film-used an AI to modify the ending of the film, wherein originally Kundan dies in the hospital and the whole narrative is left with a tragic note. The changed ending now sees Kundan surviving and trying to stand, which completely strips away the emotional and thematic closure.
Director Aanand L Rai and lead actor Dhanush expressed a public outrage that they had not been told of, nor consulted on, the change. According to Rai, this alteration is a “reckless takeover” and it kills the “intent, context, and soul” of the film. Controversies like this give rise to debates on copyright ownership, moral rights, and the ethical use of AI in storytelling.
Legal Ownership under Copyright Law
Section 17, Indian Copyright Act, 1957, states that the “author” of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be the producer, who shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.[ii] This ownership entails that they are vested with the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, or adapt the film, or communicate the film to the public. So, in theory, Eros International holds and exercises the legal right to make derivative works, including some altered version of the film, as the producers. Unless contractual restrictions were agreed upon with the director, writer, or actors, a claim based purely on copyright ownership would have limited traction.
Moral Rights and Right of Integrity
Moral rights are also recognized under Indian copyright law by virtue of Section 57 of the Act, which are independent of economic rights.[iii] These include the right of paternity (to be identified as the author of the work) and the right of integrity (to prevent derogatory treatment of the work, such as distortion, mutilation, or any modification that could harm the author’s honour or reputation). According to Indian case law, moral rights have of late been given serious consideration. For instance, in Amarnath Sehgal v Union of India, the Delhi High Court upheld the artist’s right to prevent any defacement of his mural, stating that the distortion of an artistic work could be detrimental to the reputation of the artist.[iv] In the case of Mannu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Pictures, the Delhi High Court had held that a novelist would have a right to object if her story were distorted in a film adaptation[v]. By analogy, therefore, an AI-generated change in the ending of Raanjhanaa would be viewed as a distortion of the screenplay, to the detriment of the screenwriter’s reputation.
On the other hand, Indian courts have remained quite reluctant in granting moral rights protection to film directors, producers being treated as “authors” of the cinematograph film. Directors themselves therefore have weak clout invoking moral rights unless they have managed to negotiate contractual clauses protecting their creative control thereon. This certainly brings out a lacuna in Indian copyright law, as directors, who are the ones shaping the narrative vision of films, are not really protected against alterations which adversely affect their artistic integrity.
More-Wider empties of AI in film
The Raanjhanaa drama is likely to be an onset of many more challenges by the AI into the cinematic sphere. AI tools are now already there manipulating performances digitally, generating alternative storylines, and localising films into various languages without reshooting.[vi] While commercially attractive, these practices could threaten the sanctity of art and erode the trust between producers and creative contributors.
The controversy signals an urgent need for interventions at multiple levels. Contractual safeguards could be considered that require that all key creatives give prior consent for any narrative changes. Industry codes of conduct could delineate permissible technical changes such as colour correction or dubbing from changes that affect the story. Lastly, legislative reform may be required to extend moral rights expressly to cover AI-based alteration of cinematograph films, thereby protecting creative contributors from unilateral narrative re-writes.
Conclusion
If I look from a very narrow perspective, Eros International may have acted rightly, being the copyright owner, to produce an AI-modified version of Raanjhanaa. However, legalism cannot be regarded as the sole measure of legitimacy. The uproar over the altered ending highlights a deeper conflict of economic rights with creative integrity, of ownership with authorship. Screenwriters may resist such alterations on grounds of moral rights, but directors remain practically unprotected by the law.
The incident brings forth a bigger question for Indian cinema: rather than “Whether producers can use AI to alter films,” it becomes “Whether they should?”; while AI technologies keep developing, the industries have to grapple with hard questions about authorship, integrity, and morality in the use of digital tools. The Raanjhanaa controversy, in the end, is possibly the turning point that forces filmmakers, producers, and legislators to create new contractual, ethical, and legal frameworks through which to traverse the promises and dangers of AI in storytelling.
References:
[i] Al Jazeera, ‘AI-altered Bollywood movie sparks uproar in India’ (Al Jazeera, 6 August 2025)
[ii] Copyright Act 1957, s 17.
[iii] Copyright Act 1957, s 57.
[iv] Amarnath Sehgal v Union of India 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del).
[v] Mannu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt Ltd AIR 1987 Del 13.
[vi] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’ (2020).
