Alexander Zabel, Jr. sues two YouTube commentators over footage from his registered livestream video

The complaint

Alexander Zabel, Jr. v. Helen Brennan, a/k/a "Hella," owner of the YouTube channel "Hella Excited Utterance" (@Excitedutterance); Matthew Filipczuk, a/k/a "Dali", No. 4:26-cv-00584-JGZ (D. Ariz.), is a seven-page Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Injunctive Relief filed November 5, 2026, ECF No. 1, with Exhibits A and B and a jury demand. Zabel appears without a lawyer and lists Tucson, Arizona as his city. The complaint alleges that Brennan does not reside in the United States, that Filipczuk resides in the District of Arizona, and that Filipczuk appears in the accused video as Brennan's co-host. The docket entry for the filing fee states that the case is assigned to the Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps.

The work

Zabel alleges he is the sole author and owner of a livestream motion picture subtitled "The Brazen Return - Armed with a Camera", which he says he recorded in Pima County, Arizona, during his coverage of a disappearance there, and first published on October 18, 2026, on his Criminal Network YouTube channel. The Copyright Office public record lists the work as a motion picture, Registration No. PA 2-611-361, with Alexander Zabel as author and claimant, first published October 18, 2026, and a registration date of October 22, 2026.

What it alleges

The complaint alleges that on or before October 20, 2026, the defendants published a video on the Hella Excited Utterance channel that copies footage from the work, that YouTube removed the video on October 20 after Zabel's removal request, and that on October 22 YouTube told him it had received a counter-notification asking that the video be restored. Zabel alleges the counter-notification states that 7 minutes and 35 seconds of his 1:32:22 video were played, with the hosts' voices and commentary heard over it, and that it was not signed by Brennan and did not include her name, address, telephone number, or consent to jurisdiction as 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3) requires. He alleges the infringement was willful and was not fair use, pointing to the copying of footage verbatim, publication within two days of his own, and use on the same platform where he relies on audience engagement, advertising revenue, and memberships. The complaint also pleads Arizona-directed conduct as a basis for personal jurisdiction over Brennan.

Counts and relief

Count I pleads copyright infringement of the work under 17 U.S.C. § 501 against both defendants, alleging violation of the exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (4), and (5). Zabel asks for an order under 17 U.S.C. § 502 restraining the defendants from reproducing, displaying, performing, distributing, uploading, or causing the video to be reinstated, and from any other infringing use of the work; statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), enhanced for willful infringement, or, at his election, actual damages and profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b); costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505; post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961; and any other relief the court finds just.

On the docket

Also on November 5, 2026, Zabel filed a motion to allow electronic filing by a party appearing without an attorney, the court entered a minute order with the copyright report forms, and the court sent its notice to self-represented litigants.