The 2013 romantic drama Raanjhanaa, starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, is being re-released in theatres with a new AI-assisted ending. The production house, Eros International, has announced that the film will now include a new climax created with the help of artificial intelligence. The change is being promoted as a way to offer the audience a “happy ending” to the original story.However, the film’s original director and co-producer, Aanand L Rai, has publicly distanced himself from the re-release. In a statement to The Indian Express, he said, “I’ve to be very careful while signing the dotted line.” He added, “AI is the future. Everybody knows that. But then use it for the future or for the present. Don’t use it to distort the past!”Eros, on the other hand, has maintained that it holds complete rights to the film and is within its legal bounds to alter it. In its view, using AI is simply a means to connect with evolving technology.This clash between artistic and commercial ownership has sparked broader questions about creative control, technological intervention, and the fine legal line between them.Why is the re-release happening?Raanjhanaa, directed by Aanand L Rai and written by Himanshu Sharma, is widely regarded as one of the most impactful Hindi films of the 2010s. The film, starring Dhanush, Sonam Kapoor, and Abhay Deol, explored themes of unrequited love, caste, and political ambition through the tragic arc of Kundan (Dhanush), a Hindu boy hopelessly in love with a Muslim girl, Zoya (Sonam Kapoor). The film received critical acclaim and went on to win numerous awards.More than a decade later, the production house has decided to re-release the film with a new AI-assisted ending, one they say is a “respectful creative reinterpretation”. This alteration was done without the knowledge or consent of the director. Rai has been vocal in his criticism, expressing emotional and creative disapproval. Legally, however, Rai’s disapproval does not stand much ground because, under Indian Copyright Law, the rights to a cinematograph film typically rest with the producer or production house, in this case, Eros International, not with the director.The controversy is not just about one film. It brings into focus broader concerns in the film industry: Who controls the final cut, what counts as “authorship” in the age of AI, and whether artistic integrity can survive?Story continues below this adWhile the director’s outrage may be creatively valid, the law, as it stands, doesn’t offer much recourse.“Under Indian Copyright Law section 2(d), the author of a cinematograph film is the producer,” explains advocate Ankit Sahni. “The director, unless they have a specific contract that grants them ownership or economic rights, cannot claim any legal control over the film.”According to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to adapt, reproduce, and communicate the work to the public. Section 2(d) clearly defines the “author” of a cinematograph film as the producer, not the director, writer, or editor. Directors do not enjoy moral rights under Section 57 unless they are also credited as the author in another capacity, such as screenwriter or performer.Also Read | Why has Delhi HC criticised the law capping rents in Delhi as unjust, and called it anachronistic?This means that, unless Aanand L Rai retained specific rights in his contract with Eros, he cannot stop the production house from modifying or re-releasing the film, even using AI.Story continues below this adAs for AI-generated content, there is no standalone law in India yet. “As per a Parliamentary statement, India currently protects AI-assisted works, as long as there is a significant human contribution,” explains Sahni. Fully autonomous AI creations or such works with minimal human contribution are not protected by copyright. “In this case, if they are admitting the use of AI, it could mean three things. AI has contributed to suggesting changes to the plot, writing new dialogues, and/or animation using generative AI,” says Sahni. “If the new ending was created with the help of AI, it would still be protected, provided enough human input was involved,” Sahni adds.Ultimately, the law prioritises ownership and contract over sentiment or creative authorship. The Raanjhanaa case may be emotionally charged, but it’s unlikely to lead to legal redress, unless the law itself evolves.What does it say about the larger AI debate?The Raanjhanaa controversy is more than a clash between a director and a production house; it signals a deeper and rapidly evolving debate about AI’s role in art, authorship, and ownership. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative processes, questions emerge about what constitutes “authentic” art and who controls its future. Is a story still the director’s vision if it can be altered in the future by AI?Across the globe, filmmakers have employed AI in controversial ways. In The Brutalist (2024), AI refined actors’ Hungarian accents and generated architectural visuals, and in Roadrunner (2021), the director used AI to recreate Anthony Bourdain’s voice for lines he never recorded. Closer home, AI was used to create a credibly younger version of actor Mammootty in the Malayalam movie, Rekhachitram (2025).Story continues below this adLegally, the ground is still shifting. While Indian copyright law protects works created by humans, it does not yet fully recognise autonomous AI creations. At the heart of this legal vacuum is a deeper question: should commercial stakeholders be allowed to override original artistic expression using technology, even if the law permits it?The Raanjhanaa case highlights this dilemma, where a film that once carried the emotional signature of its director is now reshaped without his consent. As AI tools grow more powerful, the need to revisit legal frameworks and ethical boundaries in the creative industry becomes important.The writer is a student who is a summer intern at The Indian Express.