Raanjhanaa’s AI edits ignite creative integrity versus copyright debate

Take for instance the well-loved 2013 film Raanjhanaa. Film studio Eros International is preparing to re-release the Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor-starrer movie in the Tamil Nadu market with a climax different from the original, powered by AI edits. Aanand L. Rai, who directed and co-produced the film under his banner Color Yellow Productions, claims he wasn’t consulted by the studio for the decision to re-introduce the film with these edits. The studio asserts that it’s the sole and exclusive copyright holder and producer, claiming it is fully entitled, both legally and ethically, to adapt and re-release the film.

Industry experts say the issue highlights how directors, most often treated as the captain of the ship in case of movies, may or may not be in a position to restrain such reinterpretations, depending on contractual rights. 

So far, re-releases of films have concerned mostly with re-mastering or restoration efforts like improved audio-visual quality or inclusion of deleted scenes, while retaining the creative integrity of the original work. Looking ahead, re-release may become common, particularly given the technology’s growing sophistication and the commercial appeal of re-engaging audiences with familiar titles, requiring industry norms to evolve to balance the rights of creative contributors and producers. However, the inherent loss of the human touch and artistic integrity remain big risks of using AI in films.

Legal complexities, moral rights

“A movie, like any project, requires all parties including the producers, writers, actors, music and financiers to enter into multiple contractual agreements to define roles and responsibilities, along with profit distribution details. One also has to review and analyse from the contracts signed between such parties to understand if the ‘author’ of the movie is separate from the ‘producer’ of the movie – this is essential to identify the first owner of the copyright in a cinematograph as per the Indian Copyright Act, 1957,” Minal Madan, founder, SLP Law, said. Further, Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides moral rights to a film director, which can be waived under contractual provisions, Madan added.

Entertainment industry experts like Madan emphasize that as AI-generated content is a relatively new addition to the movie industry, many contracts entered into by parties, particularly prior to the 2000s, may not have clauses that specifically deal with re-making, revising and re-releasing movies with AI modifications. Therefore, specific contractual agreement between the directors and the producers plays a crucial role in understanding and interpreting which party will have what specific rights and to what extent.

“Raanjhanaa represents not only the first instance of a major Indian film being re-released with AI edits, but also the first instance of an alternating ending being inserted through the use of AI technology, while fan edits, using AI tech, exist of course. While the move has courted controversy, and been criticized by the director of the film, a good reception at the box office might prove sufficient incentive to promote the use of AI tools in the future,” Niharika Karanjawala-Misra, principal associate at law firm Karanjawala & Co, said.

Eros defends move

In response to Mint’s queries, Pradeep Dwivedi, Group CEO, Eros Media World, rejected what he called “unfounded” and “sensationalist” remarks made by Rai, whom the studio had hired to direct the film. The re-release of Raanjhanaa in the Tamil market is part of Eros International’s broader strategy to refresh and re-introduce classic cinematic works to newer audiences in regional markets, Dwivedi added.

When contacted, Mint received no response from Rai.

“With respect to cinematograph films, the term author includes a director who is vested with two key moral rights, the right to claim authorship (right of paternity), and the right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation (right of integrity). If the AI-generated alternate alters the storyline, tone, or messaging of the original film in a way that the director finds derogatory to his artistic vision or reputation, he can approach the court for violation of his rights. Though his right would be subject to the nature and scope of the contract he originally entered into with the producer or the studio,” said Gaurav Sahay, founding partner, Arthashastra Legal.

Kalindhi Bhatia, partner at law firm BTG Advaya, said Raanjhanaa is likely the first reported instance in India where producers have sought to re-release a film with edits made using AI. Since production houses typically reserve the rights to the final cut of a film, they may opt to incorporate AI edits if their vision differs from that of the director. While use of AI to modify a film is novel, in the past production houses have opted to modify a film on their own, which has resulted in directors choosing to distance themselves from such films citing creative differences, an example being the 1998 Edward Norton-starrer American History X, Bhatia pointed out.

Turning point

Further, in a controversial case, the 2024 film Brutalist used AI to alter actors’ performances in post-production, which sparked backlash despite the actors being aware of the use of AI tools, according to Rashmi Deshpande, founder, Fountainhead Legal.

The AI-generated alternative ending in Raanjhanaa marks a notable moment in Indian cinema and one of the earliest global examples of AI being used to rewrite narrative arcs. As AI becomes more accessible, such practices are expected to grow but raise serious concerns about creative integrity, legal rights, and consent, Deshpande said.

To be sure, industry experts emphasize that the re-release of older films with AI-generated edits presents a web of legal, ethical, and commercial opportunities and risks in an evolving landscape of technological disruptions. While AI edits infuse fresh life into legacy content by improving technical quality with alternative narratives, the flip side is that the legal dangers are equally significant with claims of infringement.

“AI undoubtedly offers compelling opportunities to rejuvenate legacy content, enhance localization, or explore alternate creative visions, but it also risks infringing the rights and dignity of original creators if deployed without explicit consent or contractual clarity,” Ketan Mukhija, senior partner, Burgeon Law, said.