Indian filmmaker sues over AI-altered movie ending in creative rights battle

A dispute between Eros International and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai over the studio’s AI-altered re-release of the 2013 film “Raanjhanaa” has escalated into a broader confrontation about creative rights and artificial intelligence in Indian cinema. The controversy centers on Eros’s decision to use AI to create an alternate ending for the Tamil version of the romantic drama, transforming its tragic conclusion into a happier one without the director’s knowledge or consent, setting what industry observers view as a potentially precedent-setting case for filmmaker rights in the AI era.

What you should know: Eros International, a major Indian film studio, announced that the Tamil version of “Raanjhanaa,” titled “Ambikapathy,” will be re-released on August 1 with an AI-generated ending that allows the protagonist Kundan to survive instead of dying tragically.

• The original 2013 film starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor tells the story of a Hindu boy’s unrequited love for a Muslim girl, ending with his death in Varanasi.
• Director Aanand L. Rai claims he had no knowledge, consent, or involvement in the AI alteration of his work.
• This represents potentially the first case in Indian cinema of using AI to fundamentally alter a completed film’s narrative without director involvement.

The legal battle: The AI controversy is unfolding alongside a parallel corporate dispute between Eros and Rai’s production company, Colour Yellow Productions.

• Eros secured interim protection from India’s National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Colour Yellow, alleging “acts of oppression and mismanagement, including concerns over non-disclosure of financials, unauthorized transactions, and related-party transactions.”
• The NCLT issued interim directions requiring seven days’ notice before board meetings at Colour Yellow and prohibiting payments to related parties during the petition’s pendency.
• Eros’s latest statement suggests Rai’s AI criticism is “a deliberate negative PR stunt designed to distract public and industry attention from serious and ongoing legal matters.”

Competing interpretations of creative rights: The dispute highlights fundamental disagreements about filmmaker rights under Indian copyright law.

• Eros CEO Pradeep Dwivedi argues that under Indian law, “Eros is the sole and exclusive holder of all rights, including moral rights” and claims “the said director has already waived all moral rights – in writing.”
• Rai’s position suggests that while “Eros may, as the studio and producers of the film, hold certain rights, their action disregards the fundamental principles of creative intent and artistic consent.”
• Recent legal precedents, including the Indian Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kartar Singh v. Sajjan Kumar, affirmed that film directors have authorship status under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act.

What they’re saying: Both sides have offered sharply contrasting narratives about the AI alteration and its implications.

• “The recent announcement about AI-altered, Tamil-language rerelease of ‘Raanjhanaa,’ without the knowledge, consent, or involvement of its makers, sets a deeply troubling precedent,” Rai told Variety.
• Dwivedi defended the decision as “a respectful reinterpretation,” writing on LinkedIn: “At Eros, with 4,000+ films produced and distributed globally, we believe the soul of cinema lies not in resistance – but in reinvention.”
• Rai warned: “The use of AI to retrospectively manipulate narrative, tone, or meaning without the director’s involvement is not only absurd, it is a direct threat to the cultural and creative fabric we work to uphold.”

Technical approach and safeguards: Eros maintains that the AI work involved human oversight and creative supervision.

• “All AI-generated content was supervised by a team of human creatives, including editors and storytelling consultants, who worked within predefined thematic and tonal constraints,” Dwivedi explained.
• He characterized it as “a human-directed reinterpretation using AI as a tool, akin to VFX, editing, or colour grading enhancements.”
• The company is “developing an internal AI and creative ethics framework” that includes “clear labelling of any AI-enhanced or alternate versions” and “preservation and continued access to original works.”

Industry implications: The dispute is being framed as a watershed moment for Indian cinema’s approach to AI and creative rights.

• Rai drew explicit parallels to Hollywood’s recent AI struggles: “Just as the American industry faced a watershed moment two years ago, we believe Indian cinema now stands at its own inflection point.”
• Dwivedi positioned the debate as “the timeless clash between Luddites and Progressives,” comparing it to historical cinema transitions from silent films to sound and black-and-white to color.
• Rai is “escalating it with all relevant industry bodies and regulatory forums that can help establish fair, forward-looking protocols.”

The big picture: This controversy represents the collision of technological capability with traditional creative rights in one of the world’s largest film industries, potentially establishing precedents that could influence how AI is used in filmmaking globally. The outcome may determine whether studios can unilaterally alter completed works using artificial intelligence or whether filmmakers retain moral rights over their creative vision regardless of contractual arrangements.