Who Owns Creativity When AI Rewrites Cinema

Remake or Rip-Off: Who Calls the Shots in the Age of AI Cinema?

Creating an environment where artists thrive requires more than treating art as just physical property. The rise of AI in filmmaking challenges us to rethink how creative contributions are valued and protected.

The Motion Picture: An Alchemy of Creative Elements

Take the Hindi epic Sholay, which celebrated its 50th anniversary on August 15, 2025. Its lasting cultural influence is undeniable. What makes it unforgettable? Is it the story, direction, characters, music, or dialogues? The truth is, none stands alone. Each element blends perfectly to create an experience greater than its parts. That’s the mark of true filmmaking skill.

In contrast, when Raanjhanaa reappeared in theatres in August 2025 with an AI-altered ending—without the director’s or actors’ consent—it sparked intense debate. Should AI be used to modify existing films, especially without input from the original creators?

Who Is the Author of a Film?

Under Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is legally recognized as the author of a film—not the director or scriptwriter. This reflects the financial risk the producer takes: the one who pays calls the tune. But sidelining the rights of creative artists risks stifling their inspiration.

While the producer holds the film’s copyright, distinct creative contributions retain their individual identities. For example, in Indian Performing Right Society v. EIM Pictures Association, Justice Krishna Iyer emphasized that composers maintain rights over their music even when it’s part of a film. The producer controls the overall film, but individual works within it continue to enjoy separate protection.

Copyright vs Moral Rights

The Raanjhanaa case raises a key question: Does the producer’s copyright allow them to reimagine a film using AI in ways that infringe on other artists’ rights? Directors have moral rights over their creations, even if they aren’t the copyright owners.

Moral rights differ from copyright. Copyright protects economic interests like reproduction and sales, encouraging creators to monetize their work. Moral rights, however, safeguard the work’s integrity, preventing distortion or mutilation that could harm the artist’s reputation. These rights exist independently of copyright ownership and survive even after economic rights are assigned.

Actors, classified as performers under Section 2(qq), also enjoy moral rights under Section 38B. They can object to altered performances that damage their image or reputation.

Moral Rights and Cultural Heritage

Moral rights can transcend individual protection when a work becomes part of cultural heritage. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court protected an artist’s mural from mutilation, recognizing its status as a national treasure. The ruling highlighted that moral rights help safeguard not only the artist’s interests but also the cultural integrity of a nation.

By extension, altering films with cultural significance—such as Pather Panchali, Mughal-e-Azam, or Mother India—may violate cultural rights embedded in moral rights. While remakes are common, whether they honor or infringe upon the original creators’ moral rights deserves careful review.

Publicity Rights vs Personality Rights

Actors hold both publicity rights and personality rights. Publicity rights allow them to monetize their name, image, and fame. Personality rights protect their privacy, reputation, and personal identity, independent of commercial use.

Actors often craft a public persona through their role choices. Unauthorized AI alterations that replace or simulate actors can infringe on both rights. Such changes may eliminate paid opportunities (violating publicity rights) and misrepresent the actor’s chosen persona (violating personality rights).

Balancing Technology and Creative Morale

The growth of AI in filmmaking demands new ways to protect artists—not just commercially but personally. Artistic work has value beyond what can be bought or sold. The connection between an artist and their creation is deeply personal.

Reducing art to a tradable commodity risks stripping it of its soul and societal impact. Legal frameworks are evolving to recognize freedoms related to artistic expression, dignity, and self-determination, as reflected in constitutional protections.

Human creativity defines us. AI pushes us to question what makes creativity unique and whether algorithms can truly replace human genius. In an era of deepfakes and digital mimicry, laws must strike a balance between embracing technology and preserving the integrity of human creativity.