Eros-Aanand Rai Dispute Over AI-Altered ‘Raanjhanaa’ Ending Escalates

A dispute between Eros International and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai over the studio’s AI-altered re-release of the Tamil-language version of 2013 commercial hit “Raanjhanaa” has intensified, with both sides offering competing narratives about creative rights, corporate governance and the role of artificial intelligence in filmmaking.

In an exclusive statement to Variety, Rai addressed both the AI controversy and an ongoing corporate dispute between his production company Colour Yellow and Eros, suggesting the studio’s “operational challenges” have complicated their professional relationship while emphasizing that the AI issue transcends their business disagreements.

“The recent announcement about AI-altered, Tamil-language rerelease of ‘Raanjhanaa,’ without the knowledge, consent, or involvement of its makers, sets a deeply troubling precedent,” he told 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.”

The controversy erupted when Eros announced that the Tamil version of “Raanjhanaa,” titled “Ambikapathy,” would be re-released on Aug. 1 with an alternate AI-powered ending that transforms the film’s tragic conclusion into a happier one. The 2013 romantic drama, starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, was a critical and commercial success that has maintained cult status over the past decade. Set in Varanasi and Delhi, the film tells the story of Hindu boy Kundan’s unrequited love for Muslim girl Zoya, ending tragically with Kundan’s death. In the AI-generated version, Kundan reportedly survives.

Eros Group CEO Pradeep Dwivedi has mounted a vigorous defense of the company’s decision, framing it both as legal right and creative innovation. In a LinkedIn post this week, Dwivedi described the re-release as “a respectful reinterpretation” and positioned it within global cinema practices, writing: “At Eros, with 4,000+ films produced and distributed globally, we believe the soul of cinema lies not in resistance – but in reinvention.”

However, the studio’s latest statement, issued July 24, takes a more combative tone, directly attacking Rai’s credibility and motives. “We categorically reject and strongly object to the unfounded and sensationalist remarks made by Mr. Aanand L. Rai,” the statement reads, calling his objections “a deliberate negative PR stunt designed to distract public and industry attention from serious and ongoing legal matters.”

The dispute centers on competing interpretations of filmmakers’ rights under Indian copyright law. In an interview with Variety, Dwivedi argued that under Indian law, “Eros is the sole and exclusive holder of all rights, including moral rights” and made a pointed assertion about the specific contractual arrangements: “Please note that in this specific instance, the said director has already waived all moral rights – in writing; at the time of development of this film by Eros studios.”

However, Rai’s statement to Variety suggests he views the situation differently, saying that 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.”

This position finds some support in recent legal precedents, including the Indian Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kartar Singh v. Sajjan Kumar, which affirmed that film directors have authorship status under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, providing certain moral rights protections even after transferring economic rights to producers.

When asked about this apparent contradiction, Dwivedi maintained that “the definition of ‘author’ for a cinematograph film under Section 2(d)(v) is the producer” and cited the 2012 amendment where “proposals to vest moral rights in directors were explicitly rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.”

The AI controversy comes amid a parallel legal battle that has grown increasingly acrimonious. According to Eros’s July 14 filing with Indian stock exchanges, the company secured interim protection from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Rai’s production company, Colour Yellow Productions, alleging “acts of oppression and mismanagement, including concerns over non-disclosure of financials, unauthorized transactions, and related-party transactions without requisite board approvals.”

The NCLT issued interim directions requiring seven days’ notice before any board meetings at Colour Yellow and prohibiting payments to related parties during the petition’s pendency.

In his statement to Variety, Rai acknowledged the business tensions while arguing they’re separate from the creative issues. “As collaborators on several films, we have shared a long professional history with Eros. Given their operational challenges, we are no longer working together. There may be grievances on both sides, and those will take their own course, as they have in the past. That said, we fail to see how this has any bearing on the far more pressing issue at hand,” he told Variety.

Eros’s latest statement explicitly connects the two disputes, suggesting Rai’s AI criticism is “timed just days after these disclosures” as “a conscious attempt to shift focus away from the legal and governance issues he currently faces.”

When asked about suggestions that the AI rerelease was itself a strategic distraction from the company’s regulatory challenges, Dwivedi said: “We reject any suggestion that this creative project was conceived as a distraction from regulatory matters. The reinterpretation of ‘Raanjhanaa’ had been under development long before recent legal proceedings or regulatory commentary. Our legal disputes, including the ongoing NCLT proceedings, have been publicly disclosed, and we are addressing them through proper legal channels. The AI re-release is part of a long-term creative and technological strategy, not a reactive PR tactic, well ahead of any other developments.”

Rai has meanwhile positioned the controversy as a watershed moment for Indian cinema, drawing parallels to recent AI-related disputes in Hollywood.

“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. Where are the checks and balances? Who holds a studio accountable when it bypasses consent and disregards the makers who made the film possible? Their callousness and the absence of any scrutiny on the matter makes their actions truly distressing,” he told Variety.

However, Dwivedi told Variety that the AI work was not unsupervised, 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 characterized it as “a human-directed reinterpretation using AI as a tool, akin to VFX, editing, or colour grading enhancements.”

Rai warned that the implications extend far beyond his own work: “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.”

“The use of AI to retrospectively manipulate narrative, tone, or meaning without the director’s involvement is not only absurd, it is a direct threat to the cultural and creative fabric we work to uphold. If unchecked, this sets a precedent for a future where myopic, tech-aided opportunism can override the human voice and the very idea of artistic consent,” he continued.

However, Dwivedi argued that this represents an evolution in how films are reimagined. “We do believe that a new paradigm is emerging, especially in jurisdictions like India where producers are the legal authors of a film,” he said. He noted this is “similar to Hollywood in many respects and instances” and said that while the company values collaboration, “it’s equally important to acknowledge that creative reinterpretation by rights holders is a long-standing global practice, and one that can coexist with the original version respectfully.”

Dwivedi has also framed the debate in terms of technological progress versus resistance to change. In his LinkedIn post, he wrote: “We are witnessing the timeless clash between Luddites and Progressives. Every era of cinema faced it – when sound replaced silence, when color replaced black-and-white, when digital challenged celluloid, and now, when AI meets narrative.”

When asked about this characterization in his interview with Variety, Dwivedi softened his stance somewhat: “We acknowledge that creative concerns around AI are legitimate. This is not a binary debate. However, we must avoid framing all innovation as violation, especially when original works remain preserved.”

“The original ‘Raanjhanaa’ remains untouched and widely available. The AI-assisted version is a complementary narrative offering, clearly marked as such,” he added.

Dwivedi also indicated that Eros is “evaluating many popular titles, as well as lesser known ones, in our catalogue individually. Not all will be suited for reinterpretation, nor will all be treated with AI.” He suggested the company may explore “collaborative opportunities with original directors or creative leads” in some cases, while noting that consultation isn’t legally required when “contracts vest full rights with Eros.”

He said that the company is “developing an internal AI and creative ethics framework” that includes “clear labelling of any AI-enhanced or alternate versions” and “preservation and continued access to original works.”

Rai told Variety he is “taking this matter very seriously, both on principle and on behalf of the industry and creative community at large” and is “escalating it with all relevant industry bodies and regulatory forums that can help establish fair, forward-looking protocols.”

Drawing explicit parallels to Hollywood’s recent AI struggles, he said: “Just as the American industry faced a watershed moment two years ago, we believe Indian cinema now stands at its own inflection point. The choices we make today will define the rights and agency of creators for years to come. They will determine whether our industry moves forward with dignity, protection, and creative freedom, or whether it becomes vulnerable to manipulation in the name of progress.”

The dispute represents a potential first for the Indian film industry in terms of using AI to fundamentally alter a completed film’s narrative without director involvement, raising questions about creative rights, artistic consent, and the role of technology in filmmaking that are likely to reverberate throughout Bollywood and beyond.