A heated conflict has erupted between filmmaker Aanand L. Rai and Eros International over the studio’s AI-altered re-release of the 2013 hit Raanjhanaa, igniting a larger industry-wide conversation about creative ownership and the unchecked role of artificial intelligence in filmmaking.
The Tamil-dubbed version of the film, Ambikapathy, is set to re-release on August 1 with a dramatically different ending—one generated using AI, where the protagonist survives instead of dying, as in the original tragic finale. Eros has branded it a “reinterpretation,” while Rai says it’s a creative violation.
“The recent announcement about AI-altered, Tamil-language re-release of ‘Raanjhanaa,’ without the knowledge, consent, or involvement of its makers, sets a deeply troubling precedent,” Rai said in an exclusive statement to Variety. “While Eros may, as the studio and producers of the film, hold certain rights, their action disregards the fundamental principles of creative intent and artistic consent,” he added.
Eros Group CEO Pradeep Dwivedi has defended the move vigorously, calling the update a legal and artistic right. “At Eros, with 4,000+ films produced and distributed globally, we believe the soul of cinema lies not in resistance – but in reinvention,” he wrote in a LinkedIn post.
But the tone escalated this week, with Eros issuing a statement that attacked Rai’s motives directly. Calling his reaction “a deliberate negative PR stunt,” the company accused him of deflecting attention from “serious and ongoing legal matters” involving his production house, Colour Yellow Productions.
At the heart of the clash are differing interpretations of Indian copyright law. Dwivedi claims, “Eros is the sole and exclusive holder of all rights, including moral rights,” and insists Rai “waived all moral rights in writing” during the film’s development.
Rai, however, pointed to a broader legal and ethical framework, noting that the issue transcends contracts. His stance echoes the Indian Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kartar Singh v. Sajjan Kumar, which reinforced directors’ moral rights under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act.
“What is really alarming is that Eros has gone on record confirming their decision to proceed with the re-release of this AI-altered version of the film,” said Rai. “Where are the checks and balances? Who holds a studio accountable when it bypasses consent and disregards the makers who made the film possible?,” he raised the question.
Dwivedi countered that the AI work was carefully managed, saying, “All AI-generated content was supervised by a team of human creatives, including editors and storytelling consultants, who worked within predefined thematic and tonal constraints.” He likened AI to tools such as VFX or colour grading.
Still, Rai warned of wider consequences, said, “A film is not just a commercial product; it is a reflection of the vision and labour of those who bring it to life. Tampering with it after the fact, especially through artificial means, is not just a breach of trust. It is a breach of the very idea of authorship.”
While the AI controversy brews, Eros and Colour Yellow are also embroiled in a corporate legal battle. In a July 14 filing, Eros accused Colour Yellow of financial mismanagement, prompting the National Company Law Tribunal to impose temporary restrictions on the latter’s operations. Eros claims Rai’s public objection to the AI project is an attempt to divert attention.
Rejecting the linkage, Rai said, “There may be grievances on both sides… That said, we fail to see how this has any bearing on the far more pressing issue at hand”.
About Author
Leave a Reply