Recently, Universal Pictures has taken a clear stand against AI by adding a new warning to its movies. Films like How To Train Your Dragon, Jurassic World Rebirth, and The Bad Guys 2 now end with a message saying they “may not be used to train AI.” According to an article from The Hollywood Reporter, the studio believes this step will make it harder for tech companies to use its content for machine learning.
In Europe, the warning is adjusted to cite a 2019 copyright law that allows creators to stop their work from being used for research. Tech companies, however, are strongly against this rule.
The same debate over AI has reached India, where Eros International re-released the Tamil-dubbed version of Raanjhanaa (Ambikapathy) with an AI-generated alternate ending. In this version, instead of dying, the lead character Kundan survives and wakes up in a hospital. The move, promoted as a “creative reinterpretation,” has faced backlash. Director Aanand L Rai and actor Dhanush both criticised it, saying the change ruined the film’s emotional core.
This controversy highlights a bigger question for cinema worldwide: while studios own the rights to a movie, should AI be allowed to alter the story a creator originally intended? With AI tools becoming more common in filmmaking, the fight between artistic vision and technology is only getting sharper.
Rohan Mehta, CEO, FCB Kinnect and FCB/SIX India, does not see this debate as creative versus AI but rather as creative and AI, a conversation about creativity supported by AI. He adds that technology is constantly evolving, and it is the creator’s job, as marketers and creative professionals, to embrace these tools and use them to produce the best work possible.
“It's ideas which come up from human insight which are at the centre stage of everything, and AI only helps us enhance, enable and support it. But essentially there still needs to be human intervention at the end of AI, which needs to play a big role in everything that we're doing,” he says.
Sharat Kumar, Director, Crazy Few Films, finds the whole controversy unsettling, especially with the speed at which it’s moving and the complete absence of checks around how this content is being created. He further states that at the same time, it’s not entirely unexpected. Production costs have been climbing for years, and AI is simply stepping into spaces where budgets have always been tight or stretched.
“For those of us who’ve worked with real voices, real faces, and stories written with lived experiences, there’s something deeply human that’s at stake. But maybe the way forward isn’t to resist it completely but to learn how to use it without letting it erase us. If we can find ways to work with it, it might actually open up new creative possibilities. The challenge is in making sure it adds value rather than takes away the soul of what we do,” he explains.
When brand narratives are reworked by AI
As artificial intelligence tools gain traction in content creation, a new fault line is emerging in the advertising world on what happens when a brand narrative is reworked by AI without the original creator’s consent.
While brands may legally own the work they commission, the growing use of AI to alter or “remix” original ideas is raising uncomfortable questions across the industry.
Anadi Sah, National Creative Director, Chief Innovation Officer and Founding Member, tgthr, points out that brand ownership in advertising is generally clear-cut. “In terms of ideas, the brand pays us for the concepts we propose, and they eventually become the brand’s property with complete authority to use, discard, or repurpose them in any way they see fit,” he explains.
In the case of films, Sah notes, rights are typically defined for various mediums with consent-to-use clauses in contracts, often including repurposing. “Remuneration to all parties is disbursed based on these contracts, though the specific usage of AI hasn’t been spelt out in them yet,” he adds.
For Bhavesh Kapadia, Ad Film Director, Cutawayy Films, the analogy is less contractual and more culinary. “This feels a bit like cooking your wife’s secret pizza recipe and then your neighbour’s robot grabs it, adds pineapple, and serves it at the next society function as their creation,” he says.
Kapadia warns that if a brand uses AI to rework his narrative without consent, “it’s as good as saying, ‘Thanks for your idea, but now we’ll make it into something else. Hope you exist somewhere in the credits!’” He calls it “morally shaky” and questions what would stop others from doing the same.
“Using AI to rehash narratives without the creative’s nod isn’t just risky, it’s a bit like making Maggi without tasting the masala. The soul just doesn’t come through, and no one’s happy, neither the creator, nor the brand, and definitely not your loyal customers,” he says.
On the other hand, Vinil Mathew, Founder and Director, Breathless Films, draws a distinction between cinema and advertising. “If the creator is involved, that’s ideal. But in advertising, it’s ultimately up to the client,” he says, noting that commercials are commissioned for specific business goals.
While he admits he “might feel upset if some of my better-known work was altered without informing me,” he maintains that clients are under “no mandatory obligation” to seek consent in such cases.
On the broader question of AI’s role in filmmaking, Mathew voiced strong support. “I’m generally very supportive of AI. Making a film is often a very difficult process, logistically, financially, and otherwise. AI is a great enabler; it allows creative people to achieve what they want more easily and makes the process more democratic,” he says.
AI in creativity: Amplifying vision or diluting originality
As AI tools become a fixture in creative industries, the debate is shifting from whether they should be used to how they might enhance or endanger the creative intent.
Manoj Shroff, Executive Producer, Equinox Films, believes AI will inevitably reshape the production landscape. “Traditional methods may become rare, though not disappear entirely. AI will coexist with conventional methods, each used where appropriate,” he says.
He also notes that in advertising, AI can solve budgetary and logistical challenges, “If a client wants a film shot in multiple countries but has a very limited budget, AI can make it possible. You can’t simply refuse the work; instead, you find a creative solution.”
With AI becoming an integral part of the creative workflow, agencies and brands face a new question: should AI usage be explicitly addressed and limited within client contracts?
Mehta emphasises openness with clients about AI’s use. “When it comes to mentioning AI utilisation in contracts, over the years we've also mentioned different other tools that we use. This is one more tool and it's best to be transparent with our clients about where we are using it and where we are not,” he says.
Echoing this, Kumar sees the current moment as pivotal for the industry. “As an industry, we’re at a turning point. The use of AI in creative processes is inevitable but what's equally important is how transparently and responsibly we use it.”
He advocates for embedding “clear guidelines or limitations around AI usage in brand contracts” not just as a safeguard for creative integrity but also “about building trust with clients, collaborators, and audiences.”
The conversation mirrors real-world flashpoints, from AI-altered film endings to machine-generated ad campaigns, where technology’s promise of efficiency collides with questions of authenticity and authorship. As brands and creators navigate this shifting landscape, the consensus is emerging that AI works best as a collaborator and not a replacement.
.jpg)
.jpg)
