AI in Cinema: Legal and Ethical Conflict

I have been reading about how generative AI (GAI) is disrupting the film production business, and it all seems to be a state of complete disorientation as to which party owns what. The traditional copyright regulations have the producers as the best animal since they are the ones contributing the cash in the film, however, that money-centered preference conflicts with how directors, writers, and actors should be rewarded in terms of creative property and artistic rights. In this paper, I take a comparative examination of the U.S., the EU and India to understand why the producer-centric model tends to win over the creative people in the court of law. I dismantle the existing principles, such as the human-only principle of authorship, originality checks, and moral rights, and why they are not up to the task when it comes to AI changes that occur without permission, deepfakes performances, or people profiteering off the image of an actor. The point is that simply straining the copyright will be not enough; it will still retain all the strength of economic profit and lack of space of creative freedom. Thus, I put forward a package of overlapping rules that incorporate moral rights into film law, the clauses of contracts with legal requirements to informed consent by major creators, the control of AI-generated content, and the ethical provisions within the industry. Based on examples like the Raanjhanaa AI ending spat and the Hollywood/Indian cinema trends at the moment, I would say that with the law supporting both fairness and ethics, it is important to ensure that ownership is in line with who wrote the movie or directed the movie so that artists have a more power and say in AI-intensive productions.