Dhanush Slams AI-Altered ‘Raanjhanaa’

UPDATED: The dispute over Eros Worldwide‘s AI-altered rerelease of “Raanjhanaa” expanded past the director-studio battle when the movie’s lead actor Dhanush issued a public assertion Sunday expressing his opposition to the modified ending.

“The re-release of ‘Raanjhanaa’ with an AI-altered climax has fully disturbed me. This alternate ending has stripped the movie of its very soul, and the involved events went forward with it regardless of my clear objection,” Dhanush posted on X together with the remark “For the love of cinema.” “This isn’t the movie I dedicated to 12 years in the past. The usage of AI to change movies or content material is a deeply regarding precedent for each artwork and artists. It threatens the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema. I sincerely hope that stricter laws are put in place to forestall such practices sooner or later.”

The actor’s assertion follows an escalating disagreement between Eros and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai that reached new heights final week when the studio issued an expanded assertion on July 29 that not solely defended the AI rerelease but additionally accused Rai of unauthorized use of “Raanjhanaa” mental property in his upcoming movie “Tere Ishk Mein.” The studio stated it has issued a stop and desist discover dated July 25, demanding that Rai and his manufacturing firm “instantly stop unauthorized references, advertising, and artistic use of any by-product components of ‘Raanjhanaa.’” The assertion additionally disputed current feedback suggesting Rai had personally invested within the unique movie’s manufacturing, calling such claims “factually inaccurate and legally inconsequential.”

PREVIOUSLY: A dispute between Eros Worldwide and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai over the studio’s AI-altered re-release of the Tamil-language model of 2013 industrial hit “Raanjhanaa” has intensified, with each side providing competing narratives about artistic rights, company governance and the function of synthetic intelligence in filmmaking.

In an unique assertion to Selection, Rai addressed each the AI controversy and an ongoing company dispute between his manufacturing firm Color Yellow and Eros, suggesting the studio’s “operational challenges” have difficult their skilled relationship whereas emphasizing that the AI difficulty transcends their enterprise disagreements.

“The current announcement about AI-altered, Tamil-language re-release of ‘Raanjhanaa,’ with out the data, consent, or involvement of its makers, units a deeply troubling precedent,” he informed Selection. “Whereas Eros might, because the studio and producers of the movie, maintain sure rights, their motion disregards the elemental ideas of artistic intent and creative consent.”

The controversy erupted when Eros introduced that the Tamil model of “Raanjhanaa,” titled “Ambikapathy,” could be re-released on Aug. 1 with an alternate AI-powered ending that transforms the movie’s tragic conclusion right into a happier one. The 2013 romantic drama, starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, was a vital and industrial success that has maintained cult standing over the previous decade. Set in Varanasi and Delhi, the movie tells the story of Hindu boy Kundan’s unrequited love for Muslim lady Zoya, ending tragically with Kundan’s dying. Within the AI-generated model, Kundan reportedly survives.

Eros Group CEO Pradeep Dwivedi has mounted a vigorous protection of the corporate’s resolution, framing it each as authorized proper and artistic innovation. In a LinkedIn submit this week, Dwivedi described the re-release as “a respectful reinterpretation” and positioned it inside world cinema practices, writing: “At Eros, with 4,000+ movies produced and distributed globally, we imagine the soul of cinema lies not in resistance – however in reinvention.”

Nevertheless, the studio’s newest assertion, issued July 24, takes a extra combative tone, immediately 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 assertion reads, calling his objections “a deliberate detrimental PR stunt designed to distract public and trade consideration from severe and ongoing authorized issues.”

The dispute facilities on competing interpretations of filmmakers’ rights beneath Indian copyright regulation. In an interview with Selection, Dwivedi argued that beneath Indian regulation, “Eros is the only and unique holder of all rights, together with ethical rights” and made a pointed assertion concerning the particular contractual preparations: “Please observe that on this particular occasion, the stated director has already waived all ethical rights – in writing; on the time of growth of this movie by Eros studios.”

Nevertheless, Rai’s assertion to Selection suggests he views the scenario otherwise, saying that whereas “Eros might, because the studio and producers of the movie, maintain sure rights, their motion disregards the elemental ideas of artistic intent and creative consent.”

This place finds some assist in current authorized precedents, together with the Indian Supreme Courtroom’s 2022 ruling in Kartar Singh v. Sajjan Kumar, which affirmed that movie administrators have authorship standing beneath Part 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, offering sure ethical rights protections even after transferring financial rights to producers.

When requested about this obvious contradiction, Dwivedi maintained that “the definition of ‘writer’ for a cinematograph movie beneath Part 2(d)(v) is the producer” and cited the 2012 modification the place “proposals to vest ethical rights in administrators have been explicitly rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.”

The AI controversy comes amid a parallel authorized battle that has grown more and more acrimonious. Based on Eros’s July 14 submitting with Indian inventory exchanges, the corporate secured interim safety from the Nationwide Firm Regulation Tribunal (NCLT) towards Rai’s manufacturing firm, Color Yellow Productions, alleging “acts of oppression and mismanagement, together with considerations over non-disclosure of financials, unauthorized transactions, and related-party transactions with out requisite board approvals.”

The NCLT issued interim instructions requiring seven days’ discover earlier than any board conferences at Color Yellow and prohibiting funds to associated events through the petition’s pendency.

In his assertion to Selection, Rai acknowledged the enterprise tensions whereas arguing they’re separate from the artistic points. “As collaborators on a number of movies, we’ve got shared an extended skilled historical past with Eros. Given their operational challenges, we’re now not working collectively. There could also be grievances on each side, and people will take their very own course, as they’ve previously. That stated, we overlook how this has any bearing on the much more urgent difficulty at hand,” he informed Selection.

Eros’s newest assertion explicitly connects the 2 disputes, suggesting Rai’s AI criticism is “timed simply days after these disclosures” as “a acutely aware try and shift focus away from the authorized and governance points he presently faces.”

When requested about options that the AI rerelease was itself a strategic distraction from the corporate’s regulatory challenges, Dwivedi stated: “We reject any suggestion that this artistic mission was conceived as a distraction from regulatory issues. The reinterpretation of ‘Raanjhanaa’ had been beneath growth lengthy earlier than current authorized proceedings or regulatory commentary. Our authorized disputes, together with the continued NCLT proceedings, have been publicly disclosed, and we’re addressing them by means of correct authorized channels. The AI re-release is a part of a long-term artistic and technological technique, not a reactive PR tactic, nicely forward of every other developments.”

Rai has in the meantime positioned the controversy as a watershed second for Indian cinema, drawing parallels to current AI-related disputes in Hollywood.

“What is de facto alarming is that Eros has gone on report confirming their resolution to proceed with the re-release of this AI-altered model of the movie. The place are the checks and balances? Who holds a studio accountable when it bypasses consent and disregards the makers who made the movie potential? Their callousness and the absence of any scrutiny on the matter makes their actions really distressing,” he informed Selection.

Nevertheless, Dwivedi informed Selection that the AI work was not unsupervised, saying “all AI-generated content material was supervised by a workforce of human creatives, together with editors and storytelling consultants, who labored inside predefined thematic and tonal constraints.” He characterised it as “a human-directed reinterpretation utilizing AI as a software, akin to VFX, enhancing, or color grading enhancements.”

Rai warned that the implications prolong far past his personal work: “A movie is not only a industrial product; it’s a reflection of the imaginative and prescient and labour of those that carry it to life. Tampering with it after the actual fact, particularly by means of synthetic means, is not only a breach of belief. It’s a breach of the very thought of authorship.”

“The usage of AI to retrospectively manipulate narrative, tone, or which means with out the director’s involvement shouldn’t be solely absurd, it’s a direct menace to the cultural and artistic material we work to uphold. If unchecked, this units a precedent for a future the place myopic, tech-aided opportunism can override the human voice and the very thought of creative consent,” he continued.

Nevertheless, Dwivedi argued that this represents an evolution in how movies are reimagined. “We do imagine {that a} new paradigm is rising, particularly in jurisdictions like India the place producers are the authorized authors of a movie,” he stated. He famous that is “just like Hollywood in lots of respects and cases” and stated that whereas the corporate values collaboration, “it’s equally necessary to acknowledge that artistic reinterpretation by rights holders is a long-standing world observe, and one that may coexist with the unique model respectfully.”

Dwivedi has additionally framed the controversy when it comes to technological progress versus resistance to vary. In his LinkedIn submit, he wrote: “We’re witnessing the timeless conflict between Luddites and Progressives. Each period of cinema confronted it – when sound changed silence, when shade changed black-and-white, when digital challenged celluloid, and now, when AI meets narrative.”

When requested about this characterization in his interview with Selection, Dwivedi softened his stance considerably: “We acknowledge that artistic considerations round AI are official. This isn’t a binary debate. Nevertheless, we should keep away from framing all innovation as violation, particularly when unique works stay preserved.”

“The unique ‘Raanjhanaa’ stays untouched and extensively out there. The AI-assisted model is a complementary narrative providing, clearly marked as such,” he added.

Dwivedi additionally indicated that Eros is “evaluating many well-liked titles, in addition to lesser recognized ones, in our catalogue individually. Not all shall be fitted to reinterpretation, nor will all be handled with AI.” He steered the corporate might discover “collaborative alternatives with unique administrators or artistic leads” in some circumstances, whereas noting that session isn’t legally required when “contracts vest full rights with Eros.”

He stated that the corporate is “growing an inner AI and artistic ethics framework” that features “clear labelling of any AI-enhanced or alternate variations” and “preservation and continued entry to unique works.”

Rai informed Selection he’s “taking this matter very significantly, each on precept and on behalf of the trade and artistic group at giant” and is “escalating it with all related trade our bodies and regulatory boards that may assist set up truthful, forward-looking protocols.”

Drawing express parallels to Hollywood’s current AI struggles, he stated: “Simply because the American trade confronted a watershed second two years in the past, we imagine Indian cinema now stands at its personal inflection level. The alternatives we make immediately will outline the rights and company of creators for years to come back. They may decide whether or not our trade strikes ahead with dignity, safety, and artistic freedom, or whether or not it turns into weak to manipulation within the title of progress.”

The dispute represents a possible first for the Indian movie trade when it comes to utilizing AI to basically alter a accomplished movie’s narrative with out director involvement, elevating questions on artistic rights, creative consent, and the function of know-how in filmmaking which might be more likely to reverberate all through Bollywood and past.

Subsequent up for Rai is “Tere Ishq Mein,” additionally headlined by Dhanush, about which the filmmaker beforehand informed Selection, “We have been getting the identical feeling what we have been getting once we have been engaged on ‘Raanjhanaa.’”