When Bollywood film Raanjhanaa was re-released—12 years after it first came out—with a dramatically different ending achieved by AI (artificial intelligence), the film’s lead actor Dhanush and director Aanand L Rai slammed the producer Eros International, while curious audiences were unsure of what to make of it.
The Tamil version of the film Ambikapathy (Raanjhana in Hindi), originally a tragedy, was altered by AI and given a happy ending without the creators' consent. In the re-released film, the protagonist Kundan, played by Dhanush, survives - a stark departure from the tragic ending of the original where he is presumed dead.
Though Rai, the movie’s director, slammed the move and indicated his intent to take legal action, Eros International criticised him for allegedly making “factually incorrect” remarks.
This is perhaps the first known instance where an Indian film has been re-authored after its release signaling a new frontier in digital storytelling.
The experiment also raises questions about legacy, authorship, emotional memory, and cultural ownership.
BOOM spoke to several directors, actors, scriptwriters, and legal experts to understand how they see the use of AI unfolding.
Legal challenges surrounding AI, but first - Who owns movie rights?
Film industry insiders said Eros International was within its right in changing the ending of the movie using AI. However, the decision to do so without consent of the director or the actors involved has upset many.
A Bollywood actor, who wished to be anonymous, said legal contracts between artists and producers read like “horror scripts”, where producers are firmly in control.
All rights are 110% owned by the producers, the actor said. The use of AI has also become another medium for producers to “exploit,” another expert said.
Cinematographer Sanket Shah says even though a producer may own the copyrights to a finished product, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears go into the making of a film.
“A director may have worked on the film for years with a vision that is ultimately adapted on screen,” Shah said.
“It is wrong to change that vision after so many years unless it’s in unison with the director and the producer,” he said, adding that “if it is going to be like this, then actors, directors, screenwriters will soon take measures to protect themselves. Maybe contracts will start incorporating all these issues”.
Advocate Ashwth Nair said he has represented some artists who have taken steps to protect themselves from violation of their rights. Nair explained that though contracts have evolved over the years to incorporate changes of the time, one thing has remained constant - the producer’s total control over copyrights. “I have advised clients to explicitly refuse the usage of AI in any of their works,” Nair said.
Producers usually add blanket clauses to include “future exploitation rights” on any “future mode” that may not have been created yet.
This essentially means that a producer may reproduce, distribute, adapt, make spin-offs, or sell merchandise or commercialise - “exploit” any aspect of the copyright material in any manner, mode, media, and format they want.
Future mode talks about any mode - even those that may not exist at the time of signing the contract.
Advocate Mukta Desai predicted that contracts, which have been unchanged since the birth of the Indian film industry, will largely remain producer-centric.
“Producers continue to keep sole discretion, and I don’t anticipate this changing anytime soon”, she said.
'Make AI Your Friend': A New Creative Partner?
AI has already made deep inroads in the editing process of movies.
Senthil Nayagam is the founder of Chennai-based start-up ‘Muonium AI,’ where he dabbles with AI content. Most famously, he used AI to resurrect DMK leader M Karunanidhi, during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Nayagam doesn’t think there is anything wrong with Eros International rewriting Raanjhanaa. He said producers have been re-authoring movies since the dawn of time. The hullabaloo now is simply because of technological advancement and what it can now achieve, he explained.
“Everyone does it. When a movie is sent to different countries for certification before release, the filmmakers make several edits depending on geographical and local sensibilities,” the start-up founder told BOOM. “So, in a way, you are re-authoring content depending on the audience.”
“The same movie will have minor edits depending on the requirements of the censor board from a particular country. Even when the movie is dubbed, the local language uses local references which may be different from the original dialogue,” he said.
Nayagam said AI has democratised creativity. Earlier, one would need sophisticated technology to make films, now, a content creator or an aspiring filmmaker, singer, editor can make content using AI tools from their homes, he said. “This is how one starts with AI. There is no escaping from it now,” Nayagam said.
“AI will expand so much that human-creatic content will become a genre,” Nayagam boldly predicted.
Director Rahul Pandey, known for the hit web series Maamla Legal Hai, said AI is unlocking creative possibilities that were previously unimaginable.
“On the editing table, we sometimes wish we had a shot that we missed, or that the actor's smile isn't wide enough, or maybe he should’ve tilted his head the other way. There are countless such nuances and ‘what ifs,’ which can now be addressed with AI,” Pandey said.
Karan Darra, who has directed films like Khamoshiya and is working on the upcoming TV series A Legal Affair, said he uses AI tools like Midjourney and Canva to generate images or storyboards.
“Earlier, I would have hired someone to do it, or it would take time to physically go and shoot the preliminary shots. Now, I can do it myself,” Darra added.
“AI works on human prompts. So even if you are using AI tools, you need to have vision and know how to use it,” he said. Darra said he would never use AI to make “human decisions.”
“Sometimes, I run my scripts also through AI programs to see if there are any plot holes. But ultimately, all decisions and creative control is mine alone,” Darra said.
Cinematographer Siddharth Vasani said AI was “freaking exciting” from a creative standpoint. Vasani, who has worked on big-budget films like Article 370 and A Thursday, said production has become a whole lot easier with AI and explained how Rotoscopy (used in animation and for background changes or removing unwanted objects), which used to be a laborious job, has become much easier now with AI.
“Make AI your friend,” cinematographer Sanket Shah, who has worked on web series like Four More Shots Please and Modern Love Mumbai, said. Shah said AI will enable the churn of a lot of content, and faster. “We will keep seeing something new coming out. There are so many stories being made with AI now. I envision a lot of copyright issues cropping up,” Shah said. He added that AI is already being used in small ways and has used it himself to generate B-Rolls or supplemental footage, saving him time and money.
Both Shah and Vasani pointed out that as DOPs (director of photography), they stand most to lose if they do not adapt. Production designers have already taken a massive hit. They’re almost obsolete now, Shah said. Ad films are already being made using AI, they anticipate their work reducing by 20%.
“I don’t see a way around it, and people will have to get on board,” Vasani said.
“Those who resist will lose out,” Shah said as he recalled how photographers who resisted digital cameras and tried to stay true to film went out of business.
“Those who adapted survived,” Shah simply said.
Can India Expect Hollywood-style Protests?
Meanwhile, it’s the actors who have been speaking out against the charge of the AI brigade.
Dhanush tweeted a statement that said the makers of Raanjhanaa went ahead and altered the film’s ending despite his objection, and that this was not the film he committed to do 12 years ago.
In 2023, unions of American media professionals–Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)-went on a five-month-long strike (the longest in Hollywood history) before reaching a tentative agreement in November 2023 with leading production companies valued at more than $1bn and included increases in minimum salaries, “streaming participation” bonus, and more protections against images/voices being replicated by AI.
“Today’s tentative agreement represents a new paradigm. It gives SAG-AFTRA the biggest contract-on-contract gains in the history of the union, including the largest increase in minimum wages in the last forty years; a brand new residual for streaming programs; extensive consent and compensation protections in the use of artificial intelligence; and sizable contract increases on items across the board. The AMPTP is pleased to have reached a tentative agreement and looks forward to the industry resuming the work of telling great stories,” the press release read.
Director Bhavya Bokaria said at some point, maybe India would see SAG-like protests.
Bokaria said, as a director or a scriptwriter, there is not much he can do by way of contracts because the producer makes the final call.
However, seeing what happened with Raanjhana, going forward, he would try to protect the characters he creates.
“I will ensure that no one can change it without my permission,” Bokaria said. The director said he planned to meet lawyers to discuss this and see what could be done about it.
Rahul Pandey said many successful directors turned producers which gave them more creative control, more rights over their work, and a higher percentage of the profit share.
Cinematographer Siddharth Vasani said artists, actors should stand their ground on the reproduction of their likeness. “I mean tomorrow, what if the producer wants a sensual scene that the actor refused or did not agree to, but they still go ahead and shoot it using AI. That will become an issue,” he said.
However, a Bollywood actor (he did not wish to be named) who played supporting roles in many blockbuster films was not hopeful. He said artists like him have no protection. Despite having worked in many big-budget movies, he is still struggling.
The actor said he was paid a mere Rs. 70,000 for a movie that went on to make thousands of crores. “I didn’t see a penny more,” he said.
He could not see AI replacing him. “What would one achieve by creating an AI version of him? It is easier and cheaper to hire me,” he said. “It makes sense to make AI-likeness of A-list actors who are expensive and beyond one’s budget,” he explained.
He was also not hopeful that Hollywood-like protests would happen in India at all.
“Our unions are just on paper, they haven’t really done anything for any of its members.”