The controversy surrounding Eros International's re-release of the 2013 film "Raanjhanaa" with an AI-generated alternate ending highlights a significant conflict under Indian Intellectual Property Law. The original director, Aanand L. Rai, and lead actor, Dhanush, strongly condemn the alteration as a violation of artistic integrity, while Eros International asserts its rights as the film's copyright holder and producer.

Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is legally considered the "author" of a cinematographic film, granting them extensive economic rights, including adaptation. This statutory position severely limits the legal standing of directors, who are generally not recognized as authors of the complete film, thereby restricting their ability to assert moral rights over the work. The use of AI in this context further exposes ambiguities in Indian IP law concerning non-human authorship and the scope of permissible alterations. While AI-generated content typically requires human creative control for copyrightability, its use as a "tool" for modification raises complex questions about derivative works and artistic "soul." The "Raanjhanaa" case serves as a crucial precedent, emphasizing the urgent need for legislative reform to balance commercial interests with the protection of artistic integrity in the evolving landscape of AI-driven creative industries.

Introduction: The "Raanjhanaa" AI Ending Controversy

The 2013 film "Raanjhanaa" was acclaimed for its tragic ending, where the protagonist, Kundan (Dhanush), dies, a conclusion central to the film's emotional impact and "soul." However, Eros International, the film's producer, re-released a Tamil-dubbed version, "Ambikapathy," on August 1, 2025, featuring an AI-altered "happy ending" where Kundan survives. This modification was done using AI, without the consent of the original creators.

Eros International defended its action as an "exploratory baby step" and a "respectful creative reinterpretation" to offer a "new emotional lens" to audiences, noting plans to evaluate its library of over 3,000 films for similar AI treatments. They stated the AI-altered version is "clearly labelled and separate from the original," intended as an "addition to, not a replacement of, the original."

Director Aanand L. Rai condemned the alteration as "deeply disrespectful," "unauthorised," and an "abject betrayal" of his creative vision, emphasizing the human element of filmmaking. Lead actor Dhanush echoed these sentiments, stating the new ending "stripped the film of its soul" and set a "deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists." Both are exploring "judicial remedies" to stop the "unauthorised alteration."

Eros international defends its actions to be "perfectly legal" and claim their rights as the "exclusive producer and copyright holder" with the "full legal and moral right" as per the provisions of the Indian laws. They also alleged that Rai had made it a deliberate PR stunt as a result of the running legal issues surrounding his company.

The scandal has also initiated a greater industry discourse over the ethics of posthumously editing or otherwise tampering with the work of an artist without his or her consent. Critics counter that, the actions of Eros may not be illegal but they are nevertheless, unethical. This conflict brings to the spotlight the conflict between the a personhood understanding of authorship copyright (art is an extension of the creator) and a more market-oriented understanding of copyright (financial investment spells rights). The flexibility of the AI creation represents the current legal liabilities of directors in India.

Indian Copyright Law: Framework for Cinematographic Works

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, protects "cinematograph film" as a distinct work. Copyright is automatic upon creation, though registration is advisable.

A key aspect is that the "producer" is legally deemed the "author" of a cinematograph film under Section 2(d)(v) and 2(uu) of the Act, as the one who "undertakes the initiative and responsibility for the making of the work." This means overall authorship and ownership legally vest with the producer, prioritizing "commercial investment over the protection of creativity." Directors' contributions are often treated as "work for remuneration," extinguishing their rights upon compensation. Indian courts have consistently upheld the producer's authorship, ruling that directors generally have no copyright in the film as a whole.

The copyright holder (Eros International) has exclusive rights under Section 14, including reproduction, distribution, public exhibition, and adaptation. Eros's defense relies on these statutory rights, claiming they are "fully entitled - both legally and ethically - to adapt and re-release the film." This legal framework, with its "capitalist tilt," allows producers broad control over modifications and derivative works.

Moral Rights under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 57)

Moral rights Droit moral are a separate concept to the economic rights and are enshrined in section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in line with the Berne Convention. These are the Right of Paternity (attribution) to guarantee that a creator is given proper credit and the Right of Integrity, to protest distortion, mutilation, or modification that has the effect of impairing their honor or reputation. Moral rights are typically inalienable and in rare instances they can supplant the agreement terms..

Judicial precedents like Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) describe moral rights as the "soul of the author's works," emphasizing artistic expression as an "extension of the author's personality." Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures (1987) enforced the right of an author to complain about the change which changed its essence, even though it was possible to make changes under the contract, However, Raj Rewal v. Union of India (2019) defined that moral rights are neither absolute but have to be balanced against the rights of the owner.

Despite their crucial creative role, Indian copyright law "does not recognize the director as an author of the cinematographic work." This means directors generally have "no legal redressal within the current framework" for asserting moral rights over the film as a whole. While the Mannu Bhandari case was used to defend the moral rights of a literary author and cannot easily be used to dominate the rights of a director to the film itself because the producer has the statutory right to authorship. The object of Rai is not to the plain-language point of reputational harm but to the bending of narrative and artistic vision in a way that is not the usual basis of a Section 57 cause of action. The proposal to acknowledge directors as joint authors (instead of co-authors per se) in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2010 was abandoned.

The Eros International asserts there are waivers of moral rights that are embedded into the contracts in place, which is in conflict with the principle of inalienability. The Indian courts tend to apply the so-called balance doctrine, which mostly supports the commercial components of the producer, and may be subject to changes as long as it is commercially favorable.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in India

Indian copyright law, as in the UK and US, is at present "not applicable to non-human authorship." The only possible kinds of authors are individuals, natural and juristic, that is, human beings and companies, institutions. In fact, the Indian Copyright Office had cancelled a licence of AI-generated art as there was no human author. The works produced "with no creative input or alteration by a human" cannot be subject of copyright protection.

Generative AI produces a legal gap in defining authorship and causes a legal vacuum. The following essential questions have not been answered: Is it possible to make AI an author? Who then owns work generated bythe AI developer or user? This is implied by the principle of minimal creativity where the smallest input of humans could be enough to copyright as long as attributable to them.

There is a big issue of unregulated use of the copyrighted material when training AI models. In mid-2024, the DPIIT explained that "All developers of AI systems should request permission to use copyrighted material to train their systems" and this fits into the best practices throughout the world. But unlike in the EU, copyright holders in India do not now have a right not to be used in the training of AI: they may effectively be locked out of using their work in human rights applications.

The controversy is focused on whether AI is a tool or an author. AI, others say, is a means, a tool, such as a camera, in which human creative judgments are controlling. Yet, the USCO rejects it and draws the analogy between an AI user and the one who engages in art and provides it to the client because he knows only the general instructions. The Eros International entertainment company justifiably explained the Raanjhanaa AI edit as the human-led recreation with the employment of AI as no more than a tool with the same nature as visual effects, editing, or colour correction, under human guidance of the creatives, to award the status of human authorship.

Copyright Laws in India through the Copyright Act of 1957 is ill prepared to deal with the nuances of AI and is therefore effectively a legal vacuum. This legislative delay compells the stretching of the prevailing provisions by the courts resulting in uncertainties. The absence of specific laws on fair dealing/ transformative use of AI training, and opt out rights to the creators means that India places its creative industries at a competitive disadvantage to other places, such as the EU.

Legal Analysis of the "Raanjhanaa" Case under Indian IP Law

The legal stand of Eros International is good in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Being the film creator, Eros, the producer, is entitled by law, as the author/owner of the film to copyright, the statutory first owner of copyright in the film, which gives them exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, exhibit, and adapt the film. Eros states that while its actions are legal, and constitute a creative respectful reinterpretation, that there are other versions readily available of the original film. They could even have additional factors in their favor, as they allege to have told earlier about the same to Dhanush team; this allegation can become an additional fact in their defense.

The argument of Aanand L. Rai that is based on artistic betrayal and unlawful edit falls in line with the principles of moral rights. His core shortcoming, however, is that he is not treated by Indian law, as the "author" of the cinematographic film. Section 57 only provides moral rights to the writer. Thus, Rai does not have a direct cause of legal action on the issue of moral rights to the film in general. His concentration on narrative distortion instead of sheer "reputational damage" also undermines a Section 57 assertion.

The most effective legal option, in the face of the relative ineffectiveness of copyright-supported moral rights of directors, is in contractual arrangements. The claim would be stronger in case the contract signed by Rai did not allow any such changes or that he had to agree with the proposed changes. Yet, Eros asserts there are the so-called waivers of moral rights included in the existing contracts. Similarities also lie in the fact that the corporate battle into which the case between Eros and that of Rai has escalated further signifies deeper money issues, which may also affect the outcome of the case. A tort is a distant possibility as far as establishing reputational harm is concerned.

The ethical and not illegal aspect is raised in contradiction between legal permissibility and artistic consensus. Although the deeds of Eros may be rightfully allowed in accordance with the existing laws, the outcry of the whole moral community is enormous and, therefore, has a very serious risk of reputation and may put pressure on the further legislation. The case confirms that in India, the creative control on the part of directors is in large degree dependent on detailed contractual warranties, more than on directly inherited statutory rights. The legal interpretation of the AI alteration as either a form of reinterpretation or mutilation will be the focus of semantic warfare as the courts attempt to find some balance between the general statutory rights of the producer and the arguments of artistic purity.

Conclusion

The "Raanjhanaa" controversy is a landmark case for Indian IP law, particularly concerning AI in creative industries. The core issue is the disconnect between the legal definition of authorship for films (producer as author) and the director's creative contribution. This framework prioritizes commercial interests, limiting directors' ability to assert moral rights over the complete film.

While India's Copyright Act recognizes moral rights, their application for film directors is constrained by their non-author status, creating a paradox where artistic integrity lacks direct legal protection against alterations by the copyright holder. The AI-generated ending amplifies these existing legal ambiguities, highlighting the urgent need for legislative reform. Eros's strategic framing of AI as a "tool" under human supervision aims to satisfy existing human authorship requirements, but the ethical outcry reveals a significant gap between legal permissibility and artistic consensus.

Finally, in India, the right to creative control and the safe passage of the artistic vision does not rest on the rights of directors primarily on the statutes but on their well-designed contractual clauses. As the current legal cases mark a turning point in the history of Indian cinema, it is likely that the development of IP law in the context of technological innovation will become more inclined toward achieving a fairer balance between economic interests and creative potentials in a creativity informed by artificial intelligence.

Author :- Shikhar, in case of any query, contact us at Global Patent Filing or write back us via email at support@globalpatentfiling.com.

REFERENCES

• Al Jazeera, Why has an AI-altered Bollywood movie sparked uproar in India?, Al Jazeera (Aug. 8, 2025), https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/8/8/why-has-an-ai-altered-bollywood-movie-sparked-uproar-in-india.

• Amogh Ravindra, The 'Raanjhanaa' debate: AI can fake a smile, but some endings are meant to stay broken, Deccan Herald (Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.deccanherald.com/entertainment/the-raanjhanaa-debate-ai-can-fake-a-smile-but-some-endings-are-meant-to-stay-broken-3683121.

• Amrit Dhillon, Indian film company to re-release romantic drama with AI happy ending, The Guardian (July 27, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/27/indian-film-company-to-re-release-romantic-drama-with-ai-happy-ending-raanjhanaa-ambikapathy.

• Application of Copyright Law to the Indian Film Industry: An Analysis, IJIRL (June 2023), https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APPLICATION-OF-COPYRIGHT-LAW-TO-THE-INDIAN-FILM-INDUSTRY-AN-ANALYSIS.pdf.

• AI Copyright Law India: Ownership Explained, Maheshwari & Co. (July 16, 2025), https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/ai-copyright-law-india/.

• AI Copyright Law in India: Ownership Explained, IPLF (n.d.), https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1286.

• Bytescare, Moral Rights in Copyright Law, Bytescare (n.d.), https://bytescare.com/blog/moral-rights-copyright.

• Cong. Rsch. Serv., AI and Copyright: An Overview (n.d.), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922.

• Copyright Laws and Regulations India, ICLG (Oct. 21, 2024), https://iclg.com/practice-areas/copyright-laws-and-regulations/india.

• Directors' Rights Under Indian Copyright Law, Maheshwari & Co. (Aug. 11, 2025), https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/directors-rights-under-indian-copyright-law/.

• Indian Copyright Act 1957, Odisha Police (n.d.), https://odishapolice.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/The%20Indian%20Copyright%20Act%201957.pdf.

• Indian filmmaker sues over AI-altered movie ending in creative rights battle, CO/AI (July 25, 2025), https://getcoai.com/news/filmmaker-sues-over-ai-altered-movie-ending-in-creative-rights-battle/.

• Jose Antonio Lanz, Indian production company faces backlash over AI-altered film, Decrypt (July 29, 2025), https://decrypt.co/332658/indian-production-company-backlash-ai-altered-film.

• Moral Rights in Developing Countries: The Example of India—Part II, Manupatra (2019), http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/C5BBF35E-1446-4453-814D-8FFF9885389C.pdf.

• Moral Rights in Media and Entertainment Law: A Contemporary Analysis, IP & Legal Filings (n.d.), https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/moral-rights-in-media-and-entertainment-law-a-contemporary-analysis/.

• News18, Raanjhanaa AI Altered Happy Ending: Aanand L Rai Expresses Shock, Calls It Threat To Indian Cinema's Future, YouTube (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iWWVIqkFWc.

• Palki Sharma, Raanjhanaa's AI-altered happy ending: Director & actor furious. Can studios legally do this?, YouTube (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdl_SQyw4Pw.

• Pavan Duggal, Raanjhanaa AI Controversy: Cyber law expert Pavan Duggal warns of infringement, YouTube (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhaFgMoERCk.

• Raanjhanaa AI Ending EXPLAINED: What Happens To Dhanush, Sonam Kapoor In Edited Climax Of Aanand L Rai's Romantic Drama?, Times Now (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/raanjhanaa-ai-ending-explained-what-happens-to-dhanush-sonam-kapoor-in-edited-climax-of-aanand-l-rai-romantic-drama-article-152431067.

• 'Raanjhanaa': Aanand L Rai agrees with Dhanush's grave concerns over AI-edited version of the film; Says 'Actively looking at judicial remedies', Times of India (Aug. 5, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/raanjhanaa-aanand-l-rai-agrees-with-dhanushs-grave-concerns-over-ai-edited-version-of-the-film-says-actively-looking-at-judicial-remedies/articleshow/123121443.cms.

• 'Raanjhanaa' was shaped by human hands: Director Aanand L Rai slams AI-altered ending of his film as 'betrayal' in fiery Instagram post, The Economic Times (Aug. 1, 2025), https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/raanjhanaa-was-shaped-by-human-hands-director-aanand-l-rai-slams-ai-altered-ending-of-his-film-as-betrayal-in-fiery-instagram-post/articleshow/123024206.cms.

• Raanjhanaa on the Big Screen Again: Analysing the IPR Issues Triggered by an AI-Generated Ending, SpicyIP (July 28, 2025), https://spicyip.com/2025/07/raanjhanaa-on-the-big-screen-again-analysing-the-ipr-issues-triggered-by-an-ai-generated-ending.html.

• Raanjhanaa's Vision to Raanjhanaa's Revision – The Legal Exclusion of Directors in Indian Cinema, Maheshwari & Co. (Aug. 11, 2025), https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/directors-rights-under-indian-copyright-law/.

• Vineeta Kumar, 'Raanjhanaa' and the AI controversy explained: Who owns creative freedom?, India Today (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/raanjhanaa-and-the-ai-controversy-explained-who-owns-creative-freedom-2767144-2025-08-06.