Creator

xQc’s YouTube channel terminated for copyright claims

Reaction content enthusiast xQc has lost his main YouTube channel.

YouTube terminated the channel Nov. 25, and according to xQc, it was because of multiple copyright infringement claims hitting at the same time. That’s not surprising, considering he–like many reaction content makers–has regularly been criticized for using other people’s videos in a way that (1) can upset those people, and (2) may not be transformative enough to squeak by with copyright laws.

xQc (aka Félix Lengyel) found out about the deletion during a Kick livestream, and didn’t seem all that concerned.

Subscribe for daily Tubefilter Top Stories

Subscribe

“It’s literally gone,” he said, checking. “Ah, whatever.”

Later, he added, “Bro, the reason why I’m not panicking and I’m not going haywire about it is that, I always said YouTube is for people and I don’t care about the amount of money it makes. It’s just for people. It sucks that we lose it for now because people don’t get their VOD content, right? Revenue-wise, I haven’t looked twice at it.”

The channel had 2.3 million subscribers when it was deleted, and had been pulling in between 20 and 30 million views per month consistently over the past year, according to data from Gospel Stats.

YouTube is serious about copyright strikes. (It’s become more lenient about community guidelines violations, on the other hand.) Each channel gets three of them before it’s permanently terminated. Creators who get a copyright claim can appeal it, but appealing only works if they didn’t use the content in a way that violated copyright.

Lengyel told Kick viewers his channel already had two strikes when this new batch of claims arrived.

“I think it’s because, basically, I had some strikes that were going to kick in, and then I had, like, a counter-claim, and it didn’t kick in in time or something like that,” he said. “It’s auto-termination. But it comes back up. I mean, I’m sure you’ve had that before, where you have, like, multiple strikes and they all kick in at the same time.”

He added that since the strikes all kicked in together, “and since they didn’t get fought and cleared at the same time […] if one of them went through, because I was only on two strikes, I mean, it’s a GG.”

We have no idea whether Lengyel will get his channel back, and he doesn’t seem particularly concerned about it. We can kinda get that: based on his numbers, the channel was probably bringing in some cash, but not nearly as much as that $100 million streaming deal–non-exclusive, by the way–he signed with Kick back in June.

Share
Published by
James Hale

Recent Posts

Have you heard? Kurzgesagt is not AI, John Nellis goes dancing, and Baby Shark’s K-pop idol.

Each week, we handpick a selection of stories to give you a snapshot of trends,…

15 hours ago

As social media lawsuits move forward, is Section 230 facing an existential threat?

In 2026, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is celebrating its 30th birthday. At…

16 hours ago

The World Cup put creators on the broadcast. Can KSI replicate that strategy for the club he co-owns?

When Greater London soccer club Dagenham & Redbridge FC begins its campaign for the 2026-27 season,…

20 hours ago

Spotify is cracking down on AI slop, but prompters can still post their generated music if they build a personal brand around it

Spotify is adding its own "seems like AI slop" button. Like YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and…

1 day ago

OnlyFans investor says it will “never use AI in any capacity to disrupt creators”

OnlyFans' newest investor is talking up his future plans for the platform--including promising that it…

1 day ago

Influencer endorsements have created a campaign finance loophole. A proposed law would close it.

At this point, it's become clear that social media creators will play pivotal roles in…

2 days ago