Development STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl continued as planned, with several trailers teased for fans, but trouble soon followed. Leaks of builds surfaced, and a fresh scandal emerged: warnings were issued to multiple Russian-language YouTube channels for copyright infringement. This article examines what happened and why it matters.
What happened
On June 20, 2023, the YouTube channel iXBT.games received a copyright infringement strike attributed to GSC Game World Global LTD, with a complaint reportedly coming from a personal Gmail address. Journalists reached out to the address listed in the message to understand the reason behind the strikes. The response was unexpected, and a screen capture was made available to illustrate the situation.
Notably, the claim was signed by an individual without an official corporate email representing the development studio STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl. On the same day, GSC issued an official statement denying involvement in the matter and distancing the company from the person named in the complaint.
Following iXBT, copyright notices appeared on a video from an inactive channel, VGTimes. The sender remained the same, and questions arose about whether a private account could legally act on behalf of GSC Game World Global LTD. The question persisted: what grounds did YouTube have to block the video?
It is worth noting that the VGTimes channel had not been active for seven months, yet the channel’s older videos faced copyright complaints. One video revisited early official details about STALKER 2 and another explored mods for the original Stalker from 2007. Both items were flagged for alleged copyright infringement.
There is skepticism about how copyright could apply to discussions about user-made mods for a game that had been around for more than a decade at the time of the video release.
Further observations show the same Gmail address used in the alerts was listed as a contact, suggesting the strike originated from a personal email rather than an official corporate channel. Correspondence between iXBT.games and the indicated contact continued as the inquiry unfolded.
In general practice, gaming companies and media outfits tend to use corporate domains for communications. For GSC Game World, typical domains would include company-specific addresses—domains that clearly identify the organization behind the claims.
So why did the alerts come from a free email account? Who could be behind the Latin-script alias tied to the claims?
Roma-Roman?
Channels VGTimes and iXBT.games might not be the only targets in this sudden online dispute. The search for additional context led to a profile on an art and design platform, revealing a user using a raccoon avatar and a contact email tied to a personal mailbox. The individual also appeared to be connected to several developers associated with GSC Game World, including a chief artist and a former concept designer who worked on STALKER 2.
Under the avatar, a familiar contact channel was listed, hinting at a broader personal network involved in the conversation. The person in question is identified as a 3D artist with various professional connections in the industry. While their portfolio contains work related to the game’s universe, concrete evidence of official involvement remains limited. Given the sparse corroboration, direct outreach to the studio’s official channels was pursued for clarity.
Evidence in public profiles was reviewed, but there was little concrete proof tying the individual to formal company action. The situation suggests a gray area where personal activity intersects with corporate projects, prompting caution about unauthorized claims.
Artists have public portfolios and social traces that can blur lines between personal projects and studio-affiliated work. However, there is insufficient documentation to confirm any formal association with the studio in this particular matter. The decision was made to contact the game’s creators directly through official channels to seek authoritative clarification.
What emerged from this outreach added a layer of clarity to the unfolding narrative, though it did not resolve every question. The studio’s position remained consistent: it does not authorize the Gmail-based claims or the actions attributed to the alleged contact. The situation underscores the importance of verified channels when enforcing rights in an online environment.
Unexpected denouement
On the evening of June 22, a reply was received from the studio’s official contact, offering a more measured explanation. The message stated that no warnings or video blocks had been issued by the company, and that the Gmail address in question does not belong to the studio’s employees. The correspondence suggested proceeding with YouTube to obtain official clarification and indicated that the prior email could be used as evidence in an appeal.
This response carried a more official tone and aligned with what is typically expected from a developer in such disputes. It suggested that the studio does not acknowledge the Gmail strike as legitimate and highlighted that normal developer communications should come through formal channels.
Accordingly, the studio indicated cooperation with a licensed anti-piracy protection firm tasked with safeguarding its rights to all authorized content. When a representative identifies a violation, a formal letter of authority—complete with documentation—would be issued to verify the designation to act on the studio’s behalf. The attorney would then address copyright concerns in a manner consistent with legal norms.
In practical terms, the attorney’s letter would communicate the infringement claim while seeking a resolution through proper channels, without implying navigation or jurisdictional control over unrelated matters.
Implications
Following GSC Game World’s guidance, an appeal was lodged with YouTube, but as of June 26 no response had been received from the platform. The episode suggests that a lone 3D artist may have persuaded YouTube that he owned the game’s copyrights and could speak on behalf of the developers, raising questions about verification processes on large platforms. Whether this was mischief or a strategic PR maneuver is open to interpretation. Readers are invited to share their thoughts in the comments.
Have you experienced unfair YouTube blocking?
Times