The biggest threat Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses to the human race is job displacement, given how it is already in use to replace original creativity, and honed skills in the tech world. The film industry is no different, with AI being used to automate tasks like song production, playback singing, editing, creating visual effects, even scriptwriting.
The second biggest threat of AI with respect to the movies is the serious ethical questions it raises with the breach of personality and image rights e.g: deepfakes, AI-generated voice cloning in dubbing, re-recording, etc. Now a new threat has emerged, where moviemakers learn that the integrity of a film they have made can be compromised content-wise, using AI as a tool.
Recently, acclaimed Indian filmmaker Anand L Rai took to his official Meta-owned Instagram page to go on a rant about how a movie, he self-produced 12 years ago has now become a vile subject of AI modifications, thanks to the film's distributors.
Eros International Media Ltd (EIML) is a thriving Indian studio that primarily deals in Bollywood film distribution and exploitation. In 2013, Eros International distributed the Dhanush, Sonam Kapoor starrer Raanjhanaa—a Hindi film written by Himanshu Sharma, directed by Anand L Rai, and produced by Anand L Rai's Color Yellow Productions, that Himanshu Sharma is also part of.
The official Eros India page states the Raanjhanaa was co-produced by Eros International. Nevertheless, the distribution of the movie—copyright, ownership, licensing, and merchandising included—seems to have been acquired outright by Eros International, which explains why they would have absolute rights over Raanjhanaa in 2025.
1. A film’s copyright or intellectual property is generally owned by the film production house, but when studio outright buys this, the Indian Law of Copyright Compliance enables the distributor to exploit the film for any commercial gains.
2. Licensing of movies includes theatrical rights (rights to screen a film in theaters), home video rights (dvds), streaming (rights to lease a movie to an OTT platform), satellite (rights to lease a movie for broadcast on a TV channel), etc.
3. Non-exclusive agreement allows the film's distributor to grant the rights he obtained from the producer like say use of a music composition, or a film's title to others. Non-exclusive agreements between film producers and distributors is the root cause behind music composers like Ilaiyaraaja having no clue when his music is interpolated, sampled or remixed, or original movie producers having no idea when their movies are remastered and re-released.
A film producer selling non-exclusive rights of his movie to a distributor isn't unusual in Indian cinema, as witnessed in the case of the Tamil movie Parasakthi (1952). Even after 70+ years, AVM productions, distributors of Parasakthi continue to hold copyright and licensing of the film, allowing AVM to act as a sole licensor for title, and other grants. Eros however did the unprecedented which is, use their ownership of Raanjhanaa to alter the film's content using the technological advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Raanjhanaa's climax was altered using AI, preventing the lead character's death and a tragic ending to the movie, and this AI-altered version was released in theaters solely by Eros without keeping content stake-holders like Anand L Rai, Himanshu Sharma, or Color Yellow Productions in the loop. (Parasakthi producers National pictures too were never kept in the loop when it is a known fact that atleast two Kollywood films—one Vijay Antony's and one Sivakarthikeyan's had registered to reuse to the film's title)
"The past three weeks have been surreal, and deeply upsetting. To watch Raanjhanaa, a film born out of care, conflict, collaboration, and creative risk, be altered, repackaged, and re-released without my knowledge or consent has been nothing short of devastating. What makes it worse is the complete ease and casualness with which it’s been done.", a peeved Anand L Rai wrote in his Instagram post.
The filmmaker added, "Let me say this as clearly as I can: I do not support or endorse the AI-altered version of Raanjhanaa. It is unauthorised. I had no role in it. Neither did the team that made the film...The idea that our work can be taken and modified by a machine, then dressed up as innovation, is deeply disrespectful... The writer, actors, composer, lyricist, editor, technicians, and larger crew. None of us were consulted."
Late last evening, Raanjhanaa's lead act Dhanush took to his official X handle to echo his director-producer's sentiments, and wrote, "The re-release of Raanjhanaa with an Al-altered climax has completely disturbed me. This alternate ending has stripped the film of its very soul, and the concerned parties went ahead with it despite my clear objection...The use of Al to alter films or content is a deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists. It threatens the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema. I sincerely hope that stricter regulations are put in place to prevent such practices in the future."
While AI is a threat in itself that has unleashed chaos upon original creators from all aspects of life, it being combined with the copyright and licensing—a chaos that continues to plague Indian cinema (case in point: Ilaiyaraaja's never-ending woe with copyright and licensing holders), does come across a lethal combo filmmakers need to be wary of.
As Ilaiyaraaja says often says about music that gets copyrighted without his consent, or Anand L Rai summed it up for Raanjhanaa, "What’s now being circulated is not a tribute. It is a reckless takeover that strips the work of its intent, its context, and its soul."