Raanjhanaa’s AI Ending: Who Holds the Real Rights?

Raanjhanaa’s AI Ending: Who Holds the Real Rights?. The film Raanjhanaa was re-released on 1st August 2025 with an AI-generated alternate ending. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now entering the creative industries in many ways. From music to films, AI is being used to re-create, re-edit, and even generate new versions of old works. This has raised many questions about ownership, creativity, and law. Who is the “Author” of a Film?
According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the “author” of a cinematographic film is not the director but the producer.
Relevant Provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957
According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the “author” of a cinematographic film is not the director but the producer.
Section 2(uu): defines the producer as the person who takes responsibility for making the film.
Section 2(d)(v): says that for films, the producer is the author.
This means the producer has full copyright over the film, including the right to re-release it, modify it, or make new versions.
In this case, Eros International, the producer of Raanjhanaa, legally owns these rights.
What About Moral Rights?
The law also gives “moral rights” under Section 57. These include:

The right to be identified as the author, and

The right to object if changes harm the author’s honour or reputation.

But here lies the issue since the producer is legally the author, moral rights also belong to the producer, not the director. So, when director Aanand L. Rai objected to the AI ending, he did not have strong legal grounds unless his contract gave him such powers.
Court Decisions on Similar Case
Indian courts have supported the producer’s position in several cases:
IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977 SC): The Supreme Court held that once rights are assigned to the film producer, the producer has control over the work.
Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures (1987 Del): The Delhi High Court noted that in films, the producer controls the final product.
Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005 Del): The court recognised moral rights, but that case involved an artist, not a film director.
International View
The Berne Convention (Article 6bis) protects authors’ moral rights, but India’s definition of “author” is applied. Since Indian law calls the producer the author of a film, the director cannot rely on this international rule.
Conclusion
The AI ending of Raanjhanaa shows the difference between creative vision and legal ownership. Directors may feel emotionally connected to their work, but under Indian law, the producer is the true author. Unless special rights are written into contracts, the producer has the final authority to make changes, even with new technologies like AI. 
FAQs 
Q1. Who is considered the “author” of a film under Indian copyright law?
Ans. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is legally considered the author of a cinematographic film, not the director.
Q2. What rights does a film producer hold?
 Ans. The producer has complete copyright, including the right to release, re-release, edit, or create alternate versions of the film.
Q3. What are “moral rights” under Section 57 of the Copyright Act?
 Ans. Moral rights include the right to be identified as the author and the right to object to changes that may harm the author’s honour or reputation.
Q4. Can directors claim moral rights over a film?
 Ans. No, unless specified in their contract. Since the producer is legally the “author,” moral rights also vest in the producer.
Q5. Why did the director of Raanjhanaa not have strong legal grounds to oppose the AI ending?
 Ans. Because Indian law recognises the producer, not the director, as the author. Unless the director’s contract grants such authority, objections have limited legal standing.
Q6. What do Indian court judgments say about film ownership?
 Ans. Courts like in IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977) and Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures (1987) have upheld that producers control the final product.
Q7. Does international law give directors stronger rights?
 Ans. The Berne Convention protects authors’ moral rights, but since Indian law defines the producer as the “author,” the director cannot rely on this provision.
Q8. How does AI complicate copyright ownership in films?
 Ans. AI introduces new creative elements, but under Indian law, the producer still holds rights over modifications, including AI-generated versions.
Q9. What can directors do to protect their creative vision?
 Ans. Directors should ensure their contracts specifically grant them rights over final edits, changes, or alternate versions of their films.
Q10. What is the key takeaway from the Raanjhanaa case?
 Ans. Creative vision may lie with the director, but legal ownership rests with the producer unless contracts state otherwise.

The film Raanjhanaa was re-released on 1st August 2025 with an AI-generated alternate ending. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now entering the creative industries in many ways. From music to films, AI is being used to re-create, re-edit, and even generate new versions of old works. This has raised many questions about ownership, creativity, and law. Who is the “Author” of a Film?

According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the “author” of a cinematographic film is not the director but the producer.

Relevant Provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957

According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the “author” of a cinematographic film is not the director but the producer.

Section 2(uu): defines the producer as the person who takes responsibility for making the film.

Section 2(d)(v): says that for films, the producer is the author.

This means the producer has full copyright over the film, including the right to re-release it, modify it, or make new versions.

In this case, Eros International, the producer of Raanjhanaa, legally owns these rights.

What About Moral Rights?

The law also gives “moral rights” under Section 57. These include:

The right to be identified as the author, and
The right to object if changes harm the author’s honour or reputation.

Court Decisions on Similar Case

Indian courts have supported the producer’s position in several cases:

IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977 SC): The Supreme Court held that once rights are assigned to the film producer, the producer has control over the work.

Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures (1987 Del): The Delhi High Court noted that in films, the producer controls the final product.

Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005 Del): The court recognised moral rights, but that case involved an artist, not a film director.

International View

The Berne Convention (Article 6bis) protects authors’ moral rights, but India’s definition of “author” is applied. Since Indian law calls the producer the author of a film, the director cannot rely on this international rule.

Conclusion

The AI ending of Raanjhanaa shows the difference between creative vision and legal ownership. Directors may feel emotionally connected to their work, but under Indian law, the producer is the true author. Unless special rights are written into contracts, the producer has the final authority to make changes, even with new technologies like AI.

FAQs

Q1. Who is considered the “author” of a film under Indian copyright law?

Ans. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is legally considered the author of a cinematographic film, not the director.

Q2. What rights does a film producer hold?

Ans. The producer has complete copyright, including the right to release, re-release, edit, or create alternate versions of the film.

Q3. What are “moral rights” under Section 57 of the Copyright Act?

Ans. Moral rights include the right to be identified as the author and the right to object to changes that may harm the author’s honour or reputation.

Q4. Can directors claim moral rights over a film?

Ans. No, unless specified in their contract. Since the producer is legally the “author,” moral rights also vest in the producer.

Q5. Why did the director of Raanjhanaa not have strong legal grounds to oppose the AI ending?

Ans. Because Indian law recognises the producer, not the director, as the author. Unless the director’s contract grants such authority, objections have limited legal standing.

Q6. What do Indian court judgments say about film ownership?

Ans. Courts like in IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977) and Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures (1987) have upheld that producers control the final product.

Q7. Does international law give directors stronger rights?

Ans. The Berne Convention protects authors’ moral rights, but since Indian law defines the producer as the “author,” the director cannot rely on this provision.

Q8. How does AI complicate copyright ownership in films?

Ans. AI introduces new creative elements, but under Indian law, the producer still holds rights over modifications, including AI-generated versions.

Q9. What can directors do to protect their creative vision?

Ans. Directors should ensure their contracts specifically grant them rights over final edits, changes, or alternate versions of their films.

Q10. What is the key takeaway from the Raanjhanaa case?

Ans. Creative vision may lie with the director, but legal ownership rests with the producer unless contracts state otherwise.