REWRITING RAANJHANAA: IPR IMPLICATIONS OF GEN-AI FILM SEQUELS

Credits: Hindustan Times

Re-releasing films on the big screen has been a time immemorial tradition in Bollywood, be it the sob-worthy Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayegein, or Imtiaz Ali fan-favourites such as Jab We Met and Rockstar. However, in a first of its case, the much anticipated re-release of the film Raanjhanaa on 1 August 2025 saw an AI-crafted alternate ending, not only prompting viewer curiosity but also a revisit to its legal repercussions. Famously known for its doomed narrative tragedy, Raanjhanaa is now expected to canvas a fairy tale ending. As artificial intelligence continues to penetrate the fine arts, its role as a story crafter has begun to provoke more than philosophical questions. It prompts one to deliberate - what happens when the pith and substance of a creative work is reshaped by the intervention of a machine, devoid of the original vision and consent of the respective creator?

In this instance, the debate centres on legal authorship of an artistic work. The issue to be decided is, when does legal authority to modify a work overlap or encroach upon the creator’s personal connection to it? Eros International Media Limited, the corporate giant who owns the copyright to Raanjhanaa, argues that the new AI-generated film version is well within its legal rights. In its official statement, Eros described the re-release as a “creative reimagining” that is “legally compliant, transparently labelled, and artistically guided,” emphasising that the original version remains untouched and widely available.

On the other side of the battlefield is the movie director, Mr. Aanand L. Rai, who has poetically termed the AI-modified version as “artistic vandalism.” While the movie contract may tip in favour of the producer, who is granted economic and exploitation rights through a deed of assignment, the broader debate raises an urgent jurisprudential dilemma. The question remains- Is legality enough when art is at stake?

Where does the law draw a line?

Under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 2(uu) recognizes the inherent right of a producer of a cinematographic work as the legal author. Section 17(b) then vests first ownership of copyright in the person at whose instance, and for valuable consideration, the film is made, i.e., the commissioning financier who undertakes the risk of failure. Thereby, the producer – not the director – is considered the central figure in asserting ownership and making derivative decisions due to their role in initiating and financing movie production, as can be substantiated by Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern India Motion Pictures. Yet in practice, a film is not merely a financial venture. It is the culmination of artistic labour, interpretive scenes and narrative intent, often becoming the brainchild of the director’s creative stewardship.

Eros, relying on its economic rights and preliminary waiver of moral claims, has proceeded to create an AI-generated climax, terming it as a pioneering and “exploratory baby step” as part of their broader strategy to refresh classic works with AI for anniversary editions, alternate cuts and remastered versions. Director Rai has not shied away from expressing his discontent toward Eros, having had not only denied consent for the same, but is also faced with a perpetuated breach of creative identity and freedom, which runs deeper than mere contractual terms.

Moral Rights

Section 57 of the Copyright Act, derived from Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, provides that moral rights protect the paternity and integrity of an author’s work, further granting them the right to object to any distortion/modification that could harm their honour or reputation. Nevertheless, the question stands - whether an AI-rewritten ending qualifies as being prejudicial to the person’s reputation? Stretching the application of Section 57 to the aforementioned situation is ambiguous, both legally and otherwise. Legally, the uncertainty lies in the evidentiary test/threshold that is required to prove harm to honour or reputation in case of AI alterations. Factors such as materiality and extent of change, absence of consent, contractual terms and credible proof of prejudice are usually considered by the court on a case-by-case basis. Ethical and interpretive problems are equally important to consider, whereby an AI-generated version can redirect authorial intent and vision, shift the emotional or ideological context of the performance as well as change audience perception of the underlying theme.

The Indian judicial approach as far as interpretation of Section 57 is concerned has been regrettably narrow. Directors, despite their creative contributions, are not recognised as legal authors under Section 2(d) of the Act. As a result, they are rarely allowed to claim moral rights. In Ramesh Sippy v. Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh, the Bombay High Court decided that contractual arrangements take precedential importance, whereby unless specified, directors are not entitled to prevent alterations to a film. Similarly, in Sartaj Singh Pannu v. Gurbani Media Pvt. Ltd., while the Delhi High Court acknowledged the director’s creative input, it reiterated that legal recognition, and not contribution, will form the basis of enforceable IPR rights.

In contrast, Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd. is revered for encapsulating a broader scope of Section 57, affirming that moral rights survive assignment of copyright, and extend to audiovisual adaptations as well. However, the weight of this case must be considered in light that the parties settled before the judgment was formally pronounced or enforced. As a result, while Mannu Bhandari provides strong persuasive reasoning and guidance on protecting authorial integrity, it lacks the status of a binding precedent.

AI as the New-Age Collaborator?

It is pertinent to note that the AI-generated ending to Raanjhanaa is not an alternate scene filmed by the original crew. It is a full-fledged conceptual overhaul created without human authorship, likened to a sort of rebirth. The law, not having faced many precedential decisions around this altercation, has little room to accommodate such complexities. Even if an AI tool fundamentally alters a film’s interpretive tone or meaning, the director is legally bereft of a remedy, since he possesses no co-authorship over the cinematographic work. His name, vision and creative voice may shape the overall story, but in the eyes of the law, they are subordinate to the funding cheque and ensuing contract.

The situation is compounded by the reality that most legacy contracts, especially those signed before 2015, contain broad waivers or fail to anticipate future technologies altogether. Indian copyright law, post 2012 amendments, prohibits blanket assignments for formats that didn’t exist at the time of agreement. Since the extent of AI’s powers were not foreseeable back in 2013 when Raanjhanaa was produced, the legal authority to re-version the film may simply not exist, even if the studio claims ownership over the economic rights.

AI and Derivative Authorship

The dilemma in this case exposes the grave lacunae in several Indian legislations, especially under the intellectual property rights domain, and how these laws and subsequent amendments fail to address the growing threats of AI inculcation in the creative/artistic industry. While derivative works are protected under Section 14, their control flows from ownership, not original authorship. And AI, as of now, enjoys no recognition as an author or creator. This ultimately results in the position that the person/entity which owns the machine exercises its ultimate command.

Unless directors are granted co-authorship status, a proposal which was rejected during the 2010 Copyright Amendment debates, they cannot veto or shape future uses of their work, even if it alters the fundamental message.

Another tangent of inquiry arises from the position that, while the film director may be precluded from seeking a viable legal remedy, the writers and performers of the film on the other hand, may advance claims toward protecting their moral or personality rights, as envisaged under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act.

In the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, the Bombay High Court addressed a related concern about personality rights, whereby AI-generated voices of the revered singer, Arijit Singh, were monetized without his consent. Although the court granted an injunction, it did not address whether such AI use also incriminates moral rights, a question that remains suspended in legal limbo.

In the international arena, although not strikingly similar, the American case of Hill v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. bears certain parallels with the instant controversy. The writer of the original Roadhouse screenplay, Lance Hill, alleged that Amazon, MGM and United Artists disregarded his copyright termination rights and went on to deploy AI to replicate actors’ voices without consent for their 2024 remake. The court, granting relief to Hill, noted a clear-cut case of copyright infringement, demonstrating the slowly developing jurisprudence around the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights across various jurisdictions.

Potential Reforms

The need to align with global best practices is apparent from the face of it. For instance, under Clause 51 of UK’s Copyright and AI: Consultation, ‘computer-generated works’ have been provided recognition by attributing authorship to the person who undertakes the respective arrangements to generate it. Further, the European Union’s AI Act introduces obligations for watermarking and disclosure of AI-generated works, thereby reinforcing creator control. In the United States, the Copyright Office mandatorily requires human authorship, excluding completely AI-generated works. American States like Tennessee have put a foot forward through the Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security Act 2024 (ELVIS Act), which criminalizes unauthorized AI cloning of artists’ voices.

Nonetheless, the bottom line for India remains – at the legislative level, it is passionately lobbied that the Indian Copyright Act (and other intellectual property right laws) be amended to explicitly address generative AI works. A case like Raanjhanaa is not going to be an anomaly. It is a signal for conventional film contracts to adapt with new-age contractual clauses revolving around AI adaptation and narrative alteration as negotiable points for discussion.

Concluding Remarks

The law backs the producer. The culture and industry, perhaps, sides with the artist. Revisionism in art, especially when commercialised, raises not just legal concerns, but cultural and philosophical ones too. One day, if the AI algorithm decides that Raj from Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayegein gets tired and takes the next train without waiting for Simran, it does not remain Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayegein anymore, it’s just a rom-com that never-was.

Without structural reform, including the recognition of a directors’ moral rights, regulation of AI in creative imagination and guidelines on collaborative authorship, such conflicts are only expected to multiply. Details of Author

Author - Sanjana Kothari is a penultimate year student at Gujarat National Law University. Edited by - Ojasi Gopikrishna