The fundamental objective of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 ("Copyright Act") is to safeguard intellectual creativity by granting creators exclusive rights over the use and dissemination of their works, thereby protecting such works from unauthorized exploitation. However, in the context of cinematographic works, this protection does not extend to the actual creators such as directors – but rather to the producer, who is typically the investor and financial risk-bearer. Consequently, the copyright regime in this domain shifts its focus from the protection of creativity to the protection of commercial investment.
Twelve years ago, Raanjhanaa (released as Ambikapathy in Tamil) captivated audiences with its raw portrayal of unrequited love, political intrigue, and sacrifice. Its tragic ending – where the protagonist knowingly walks into a trap and dies at a political rally for the sake of love -left viewers with a bittersweet ache. This climax wasn't just a narrative decision; it was the emotional culmination of the film's ethos.
In 2025, however, this emotionally resonant conclusion was replaced. Eros Media World, the film's producers, re-released the movie with an AI-generated "happy ending." The protagonist survives, waking up surrounded by loved ones. This alternate ending was created without the knowledge or consent of several original contributors, including the film's director—raising serious ethical questions.
Can AI be used to alter the essence of a creative work without consent from its creators, especially the director? What are the nuances of overall copyright protection for a movie? and what is extent of protection and credit that is extended to the contributors of movie as per the Copyright Act?
This article delves into the nuanced legal framework surrounding the authorship of cinematographic works under the Indian Copyright Act, with particular focus on the moral rights of contributors and the concept of "joint authorship," which may extend recognition and protection to film directors as co-creators.
Explore More: Intellectual Property
Different Contributors And Authors In A Movie
A film is a collaborative artistic endeavour that brings together the creative inputs of numerous professionals. It is the result of the combined efforts of individuals involved in scriptwriting, screenplay development, dialogue writing, music composition, choreography, costume design, and various other aspects. Each of these contributions plays a critical role in shaping the final cinematic work presented to the audience.
The Copyright Act recognizes and protects these individual contributions under distinct categories, as outlined below:
- The movie as a whole: A film is protected as a "Cinematograph Film" under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act. This protection covers all visual recordings, including any accompanying sound recordings forming part of the film. According to Section 2(d)(v), the producer—defined as the person who undertakes the initiative and responsibility for the making of the work—is deemed the author of the cinematograph film.
- Script, dialogues, screenplay: These are categorized as "Literary Works" under Section 2(o). The writer of these elements is considered the first owner of the copyright, as per Section 2(d)(i).
- The songs: The composite sound recording—including vocals, instrumental music, and mixing—is protected as a "Sound Recording" under Section 2(xx). The music producer is recognized as the author of the sound recording under Section 2(d)(v).
- Lyrics of the songs: Song lyrics are treated as literary works under Section 2(o). The lyricist is acknowledged as the author of the lyrics.
- Musical composition: The melody or musical notation is protected as a "Musical Work" under Section 2(p). The composer is deemed the author of the musical work, in accordance with Section 2(d)(ii).
- Costume designs: If a costume design demonstrates a sufficient degree of originality, creativity, and is not purely functional, the same is protectable under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act as an Artistic Work. The author of this artistic work is the designer who designed the costumes, per section 2(d)(i) of the Copyright Act.
Pertinently, while the individual creators of the components listed above may hold independent copyrights in their respective contributions, the overall authorship and ownership of the film as a cinematographic work legally vests with the producer, unless otherwise agreed by contract.
Director's Rights As Per The Indian Copyright Laws
While the various creative contributions to a film are individually protected under Indian copyright law, not all contributors enjoy standalone copyright protection over their work. One notable example is that of the film director.
A director serves as the creative head and principal decision-maker in the filmmaking process. Their role involves translating the written script into a coherent visual narrative, overseeing artistic and technical aspects such as actor performances, cinematography, editing, sound design, and the overall tone and vision of the film. Despite this significant creative involvement, Indian copyright law does not recognize the director as an author of the cinematographic work. Instead, their contribution is treated as a "work for remuneration", meaning that once the director is compensated by the producer, their rights in the work are deemed to be extinguished.
While this legal position may be doctrinally consistent with the statutory framework, it has been morally and philosophically critiqued, particularly in light of the director's central role in shaping the creative outcome of a film. Under Indian law, authorship of a cinematographic work is determined by financial initiative and risk, which vests authorship with the producer, as per Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act.
This position, however, appears to diverge from the foundational principles of copyright law, which are intended to protect the intellectual labour of creators. Black's Law Dictionary defines an author as:
"One who produces, by his own intellectual labour applied to the materials of his composition, an arrangement or compilation new in itself."
This definition resonates with the "personhood theory" of authorship, which is rooted in the belief that artistic works are extensions of their creator's personal identity, vision, and expression. Applied to cinema, this theory posits that a film is a manifestation of the director's creative personality, and that such a contribution warrants legal recognition and protection as intellectual property.
This perspective found strong support in the mid-20th century French film discourse. Influential filmmakers such as Andrew Austruc1 and François Truffaut2 argued that the director is the true author of a film, shaping every artistic and emotional layer of the cinematic work. This view evolved into what became known as the "Auteur Theory", later popularized by American critic Andrew Sarris.3 The theory emphasized the director's creative autonomy and stylistic consistency, proposing that a film reflects the director's personal vision much like a novel reflects its writer's voice.
While the auteur/personhood theory gained traction in countries such as France, and parts of Scandinavia (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), it has not been formally adopted in jurisdictions like India and the United States, where copyright authorship is largely aligned with economic investment and production control.
In India, statutory recognition and rights have been extended to creators of musical works, with the 2012 amendment mandating equal royalty sharing between composers and lyricists. However, no such rights are granted to film directors, despite their substantial role in crafting a cinematographic work. The legal definition remains rooted in Section 2(d)(v), which unequivocally identifies the producer as the author of a film.
Indian courts have time and again excluded film directors from being recognized as the "authors" of a cinematograph film and have stressed this role upon exclusively upon producers.
In the case of MRF v. Metro Tyres,4 the Delhi High Court clarified that authorship privileges under Section 14 of the Copyright Act are extended towards the author of a cinematographic film – who as per the act, is the film's producer. While in the case of a musical work this privilege would go to the creator, being the legitimate author of the musical work, authorship privileges of a cinematographic work vest not in the creator by the financial investor and risk taker. The pertinent excerpt from the judgment is set out below:
"Merely because the producer is the owner of the copyright under the Act, 1957 does not mean that there is no creative input by the Director or that the scope of the copyright protection for a film under the Act, 1957 is in any manner narrower than with respect to other works. This is reflected in the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010".
In the case of Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vipul Amrutlal Shah & Ors.,5 the Supreme Court had held that the rights to remake a movie vest with the movie's producer, being its author and not the director. The pertinent excerpt from the judgment is set out below:
"By operation of law or by contract or assignment the producer of the film may be vested copyrights< in the above works. For example, the producer may employ a storywriter or a screenplay writer or a singer under a contract of employment. In that case the employer, subject to contract, is the first owner of the copyright".
In the case of Ramesh Sippy v. Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh and others,6 the Bombay High Court held that the plaintiff had not spent any amount of money on making the film Sholay by himself. Therefore, he cannot claim authorship of the movie. His directorship was rewarded by valuable consideration.
"In the present case, based on the documents the said firm was the owner of the copyright in the cinematograph work of the film Sholay, the Plaintiff was only the Director and a Director has no copyright in the film....The Plaintiff has only directed the film 'Sholay' and has received accolades as a Director of the film 'Sholay'. Since it was the Partnership Firm which produced the film the name of late Mr. Vijay Sippy being a Partner in the said firm was also acknowledged and credited as Associate producer of the film. The Plaintiff has therefore miserably failed to show that he has spent any amount whatsoever on the film Sholay by himself and/or by taking a loan. The Plaintiff therefore at no point of time was the author and/or the owner of the saidfilm Sholay."
More recently, in the case of Kabir Singh Chowdhry vs Sapna Moti Bhavnani And 6 Ors,7 the Bombay High Court held that directorship in a movie does not entitle the director to claim being the 'author' of the film. The pertinent excerpt from the judgment is set out below:
"The plaintiff may have been associated with the production and completion of the film after 12th June, 1975 but only as its Director and only doing all the jobs of the Director. The Directorship of the film in question has brought tremendous laurels to the plaintiff and he enjoys fame even till date. However, the Directorship does not entitle him to claim being the 'author' of the film and claim copyright and moral rights in the film, either at the time of release of the film or even today...............................It is submitted that the plaintiff was and remains only to be the Principal Director of the said film Sholay and nothing more, and therefore cannot claim authorship in the said film and consequently cannot claim any reliefs as prayed for in the suit and the Notice of Motion".
The above judgements clearly establish that under Indian copyright law, the authorship of a cinematograph film is legally attributed to the individual or entity that undertakes the financial responsibility for producing the film—that is, the person who initiates and oversees the production by investing capital and bearing the associated commercial risks. This role is typically fulfilled by the producer. As a result, even though a director may contribute significantly to the creative and artistic dimensions of the film, they are not recognized as the legal 'author' or copyright owner of the cinematograph work
Moral Rights Of A Director
Changing the climax of a movie such as Raanjhanaa/ Ambikapathyi s bound to change the ethos of the movie and its emotional culmination. If the movie is an expression of the director's mood, personality and vision, a change in the climax made by the producer, without seeking any consent from the director, can be considered morally unfair.
However, legally speaking, the Copyright Act does not vest the director with any moral rights per se. Section 57 of the Copyright Act recognises two key moral right, that are listed below:
"Independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right
- to claim authorship of the work; and
- to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation:
Provided that the author shall not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any adaptation of a computer programme to which clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 52 applies.
Explanation – Failure to display a work or to display it to the satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section".
Section 57 safeguards an author's personal connection to their work by giving them the right to be identified as the creator and prevent misuse or distortion that harms their reputation and integrity. These rights are vital for maintaining the dignity and moral standing of creators in the public sphere.
However, the above-mentioned rights extend solely to the author of the cinematographic work, that is, the producer. Therefore, a director's dissatisfaction re. changing the climax does not have any legal redressal in the current framework. As a result, directors cannot claim royalties, and have no control over modifications to their work. Unlike music composers or lyricists, they are excluded from collective rights organizations. This legal gap undermines their creative contribution, offering them neither recognition nor protection, and perpetuates the marginalization of their authorship in the cinematic process.
Proposal For Joint Authorship
- Berne Convention Debates and Outcomes – 1967 Stockholm Conference
The 1967 Stockholm Conference revising the Berne Convention discussed in detail the idea of legal authorship of the principal director of a film. While acknowledging the collaborative nature of filmmaking, many countries argued that the director's creative vision is central to a film's artistic identity and merits copyright protection.
This led to the adoption of Article 14bis, which states that the principal director "shall be considered the author or one of the authors" of a cinematographic work. However, adherence to the provision was left solely at the discretion of the member countries, with no mandatory obligation to include the article within national laws. The provision aimed to strike a balance by elevating the director's status internationally and also simultaneously allowing member countries to define authorship of cinematographic works based on their own legal traditions and socio-economic backgrounds.
The 2010 Amendment Bill to India's Copyright Act, 1957, proposed a significant change by seeking to recognize the principal director of a cinematograph film as a joint author of the work. By designating the principal director as a joint author, the amendment intended to ensure that directors had moral and economic rights over their work, aligning Indian copyright law with international standards such as the Berne Convention and practices in jurisdictions like the EU. This would entitle the director to a share in royalties and safeguard their creative integrity, particularly in cases of unauthorized alterations or exploitations of the film
However, the proposal was ultimately rejected due to a combination of industry opposition, practical concerns, and lobbying pressures. The Committee was of the view that a producer takes the initiative and responsibility for making the work and chooses the director on certain offer. Including the principal director as author of a cinematograph film along with producer, as per the Committee could create confusion since directors are not only paid their negotiated fee and contract, but also certain rights in perpetuity relating to the script. The Committee also argued that the principal director does not take any equity risk in the production/performance of a film and it is the producer alone who runs the risk of his investment not being recovered. Therefore, joint ownership, as per the Committee is unfair.
Need For Protection Of Directors' Rights In India
Unfortunately, film directors in India lack organizations and copyright societies to support their rights and liberties. Unlike musicians or writers, directors have no dedicated copyright society, no union to advocate for their moral rights and no statute that defends their creative voice. The legal silence is profound.
The controversy surrounding the revised ending of Raanjhanaas tarkly highlights a systemic issue in Indian copyright law – the lack of legal recognition and protection of directors' rights. Despite being the creative backbone of a film, a director in India is not considered the "author" under the Copyright Act. Instead, Section 2(d)(v) vests authorship in the producer – the person who finances and takes responsibility for the production, leaving the director's artistic vision legally unprotected.
In the case of Raanjhanaa, director Aanand L. Rai reportedly envisioned a different ending than the one ultimately released. The revised climax, influenced by production and commercial considerations, was allegedly implemented without his prior knowledge or consent. Yet, under Indian law, the director has no moral right to object, no legal authority to prevent such changes.
This legal structure fails to acknowledge the intellectual and emotional labour directors invest in shaping a film's narrative, tone, and vision. Globally, many jurisdictions — including France and several Scandinavian countries — recognize directors as co-authors, granting them both moral and economic rights.
The Raanjhanaa episode should serve as a wake-up call. India must re-evaluate its copyright framework to reflect the creative realities of filmmaking. Recognizing directors as co-authors would not only align Indian law with international standards but also uphold the dignity of artistic expression. That said, the rejection of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, on the grounds that directors do not bear financial risk, cannot be ignored and must be factored in while structuring any legal reform that seeks to recognize directors as co-authors. A balanced framework must differentiate between creative contribution and financial investment, ensuring that while producers retain commercial rights, directors are duly accorded moral and limited economic rights in recognition of their artistic authorship.
Footnotes
1. Alexander Astruc, The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Camera-Stylo, originally printed in L'ECRANFRANCAISEMar. 30, 1948,
2. John Hess, La Politique des Auteurs (part one), 1 JUMP CUT, 19 (1974)
3. Andrew Sarris, Notes on Auteur Theory in 1962, in Leo Braudy & Marshall Cohen, Film Theory And Criticism: Introductory Readings451 (7th Ed. 2009).
4. (2019) 262 DLT 734.
5. 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 2113.
6. SUIT NO. 166 OF 2013.
7. COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 5415 OF 2020.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
