Since a breakdown of the strikes on our YouTube channel was posted on June 26 by a 3D artist connected to STALKER 2: Heart of Chernobyl, another week has passed. This is a moment to reassess what happened, what it could mean, and what may come next.
3 strikes for footage from official STALKER 2 trailers and the initial reaction
The aim here is not to revisit every plot detail. Readers can consult the analysis article for the full context. What follows is a brief summary of the progression. By June 20, several YouTube channels had received copyright infringement notices from Russian-language media, including this channel. A dispute was logged over videos that used official STALKER 2 trailers and publicly available material during early announcements, content that had already sat on the page for some time.
Our channel remains active.
After reaching out to GSC Game World, a comment and some guidance were requested to clarify the situation. The developers responded promptly, clarifying that the action did not originate from them. Similar messages were sent by others who contacted GSC via its business email rather than Roman’s personal address.
Proceeding to publish the analysis, a third decisive strike appeared, likely from the same source. The list of alleged illegal videos thus grew to include several items such as: The best STALKER mods to play in early 2021 with content drawn from STALKER 2 Official Trailer #1 in 4K; ALL ABOUT STALKER 2 covering plot, hero, weapons, factions, anomalies and mods with footage from STALKER 2 Official Trailer #1 in 4K; and Most Anticipated Games of 2022 featuring STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl.
Counterclaims were filed with YouTube in good faith, asserting the right to use official trailers and publicly available material, and the team waited for a hosting decision.
It was noted that YouTube’s correspondence listed GSC Game World Global LTD as the complainant, yet the reply email belonged to an individual — another address later linked to an ArtStation profile for a person named Dan Connery, associated with the STALKER community. The team decided to gather more information before submitting a formal request. The situation was further complicated by questions about the hosting platform’s own compliance practices.
The core issue remained: why do YouTube rules feel so opaque, and why do small channels face the same friction as large ones? The community often hears about tightened rules, the need to delete material, or even to migrate content to other platforms such as RUTUBE or VKontakte.
Copyright enforcement on YouTube touches several rule areas at once. The platform provides limited information about specific infringements, often only noting the exact timecode and a fragment title, with occasional misalignments between the claimed clip and the video used. This gap can complicate fair resolution, as seen in this case.
Google offers detailed takedown data, indicating which videos are copyrighted and which are not. Yet despite similar rules across many regions, YouTube frequently relies on local legislation to resolve disputes, introducing variance between states or countries.
In this instance, the question is whether the use of official trailers constitutes fair practice or media work. The answer remains contested, and the outcome has depended on the platform’s interpretation of the claim.
The team acknowledges that appealing can feel limited — counter-notifications provide space for argument but rarely come with a direct channel for official responses from the developer studio, making the process frustrating and opaque.
Turned down
The initial attempt to escalate the case failed. The warnings stayed, and GSC Game World Global LTD did not seem to influence YouTube’s decision. All three counter-notifications were rejected without explanation, with a warning of a potential block on a stated future date.
Fortunately, it is possible to submit a new objection. The team adjusted the arguments and entered a second round.
A glimmer of hope. Could YouTube be on our side?
After re-appealing all three videos, two were ultimately accepted by YouTube and forwarded to the complainant for review. This indicates that the platform acknowledged some ambiguity in the case, though the matter is far from resolved. The claimant was given a window to pursue legal action, and if the window passes, the videos will be restored.
The last video proved more challenging. The complaint alleged that software was used, suggesting frames might come from leaked STALKER 2 builds. Critics argue the timing of the leak claim clashes with the release timeline, but proving this to YouTube remains difficult. The platform has shown reluctance to adjust its stance despite new clarifications.
In reviewing the situation, the team notes that the current policy framework makes such disputes arduous. The lesson drawn is clear: content, especially media material tied to STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl, should be used with caution. The channel remains prepared for any outcome and is committed to sharing insights about games while standing up for the right to publish content.
Feedback from other outlets in the field acknowledged the moment, with solidarity among several media partners who faced similar strikes, including colleagues from iXBT.
All discussions of the incident emphasize the same point: creators should be mindful of rights when using trailers or similar materials. The stakes are high, and the path forward involves careful documentation and a willingness to engage with the platform’s process in good faith.