Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 8- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A) LEASES Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. currently does not lease, rent or own any property. B) LITIGATION The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a supplier that is alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $54,712 and a judgment was entered in the matter for $55,512. Global Tech has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and 2015. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from another supplier also alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $4,298. A judgment was entered for $4,352 and the Company has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and 2015. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a third supplier also alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $9,675. Management has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. All the notes payable discussed in this section, were incurred before 2002 and before present management took control of the company. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a supplier alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. Management settled this lawsuit on November 30, 2001 and issued a note payable for $18,000 due September 1, 2002 with interest at 6% per annum in full settlement of this claim. As reflected in Notes Payable, the amount due on this note remains unpaid, and management has indicated that it has received no demand for payment from this note holder. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from another supplier also alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. This lawsuit was settled on May 1, 2002 by issuing a non-interest bearing note payable for $25,000 due on September 12, 2002. The Company defaulted on this note, has not paid it to date and received a notice of motion dated October 22, 2002, seeking entry of a judgment for $30,000 plus interest effective December 6, 2002. The Company adjusted the note balance to $30,000 and has recorded interest expense at 6% per annum from May 1, 2002, the date of settlement, through the end of 2016. The Company was a defendant in another lawsuit from a former consultant alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. Management has executed a note payable to this plaintiff for $40,000 which was due on July 10, 2002 and remains unpaid. Pursuant to the terms of this note, the Company has recorded interest payable at 7% for the period July 10, 2002 through December 31, 2016. During April 2012, the Company filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against GeoGreen Biofuels, Inc. and related parties, relating to GeoGreen’s failure to repay $192,000 advanced pursuant to a Bridge Loan Term Sheet. Although litigation is inherently unpredictable, GTII is confident in its position, and intends to pursue the action aggressively. GeoGreen has filed a cross-complaint against the Company and its two officers, the Chief Executive Officer and the President, however the charges against the officers were subsequently dismissed with prejudice. A motion was also passed denying GeoGreen’s motion to strike GTII’s request for punitive damages. For the time being GTII has dropped their lawsuit. Pursuant to the asset purchase agreement with ARUR, the Company has a contingent liability to payback notes payable in the amount of approximately $400,000 if the Company is successful in collecting on certain accounts receivable. If the receivables are not collected, there is no obligation on the Company to pay off the debt. During March 2013, the Company was named in an action pertaining to the 75% working interest in the Ownbey Lease. Subsequent to the Company’s purchase of the assets and the termination of the operator, a mechanics lien was filed against the property claiming approximately $267,000 in fees are due to the previous operator. An action is pending in the District Court of Chautauqua County, Kansas, captioned Aesir Energy, Inc. vs. American Resource Technologies, Inc.; Nancy Ownbey Archer; Jimmy Stephen Ownbey; Robbie Faye Butts; Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. and TTII oil & Gas, Inc. Management intends to vigorously contest AESIR’s claims and, at this point, settlement appears unlikely. It has been presented in the County Court that some of ARUR’s Directors have acted without authorization in this matter, and GTII’s management is assessing how to proceed at this time. No monetary claims have been asserted against GTII or TTII Oil & Gas, Inc. The Company has made several attempts to recover the shares of GTII stock paid to ARUR for the asset acquisition and the various costs and expenses expended by GTII in fulfillment of its obligations under the contract with ARUR. The failure of non-litigation attempts to resolve the matter resulted in filing an action for declaratory judgment in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case#17-CV-0698. On the 3rd of February 2017, GTII filed an action for declaratory relief in the Eastern District of New York, for the purpose of recovering the costs, expenses and consideration paid to ARUR for the rights and benefits associated with an Oil and Gas transaction entered into between the parties on December 31st 2012. The action by GTII is predicated on the underlying contract for the sale of the assets of ARUR being vacated by a local Kansas Court on the basis that the company and its officers lacked the authority to enter into the contract. Because of that decision GTII lost all interest in the transaction, their associated benefits and any financial gain that may have been anticipated. Attempts were made to resolve this without litigation but have been unsuccessful. The matter is proceeding accordingly. The Company has made several attempts to recover the shares of GTII, f/k/a TTI stock paid to ARUR for the asset acquisition and the various costs and expenses expended by GTII in fulfillment of its obligations under the contract with ARUR. The failure of non-litigation attempts to resolve the matter resulted in filing an action for declaratory judgment in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case#17-CV-0698. As of this writing the case has not yet been decided. C) EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Effective October 1, 2007, the Company entered into a two-year employment agreement with David Reichman, Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to which Mr. Reichman was paid an annual salary of $250,000, payable in semi-monthly installments. In addition, Mr. Reichman may be paid a bonus or bonuses during each year, as determined at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors and receive stock options to purchase 1.2 million shares of common stock as discussed above. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Board of Directors approved the extension of this contract an additional two years from the date of expiration, at an annual salary of $500,000. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Board of Directors approved the extension of this contract until December 31, 2013 with a salary of $1. Mr. Reichman’s salary has been accruing because Global Tech is without the resources to pay the salary in full. This employment agreement was filed on November 7, 2007, as exhibit 99.2 to a current report of the Company on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Reichman’s contract has been extended by mutual consent to December 31, 2017. Effective April 1, 2009, the Company entered into a three-year employment agreement with Kathy Griffin, President, pursuant to which Mrs. Griffin was paid an annual salary of $127,500, payable in semi-monthly installments. In addition, Mrs. Griffin may be paid a bonus or bonuses during each year, as determined at the discretion of the CEO, and receive stock options to purchase shares of common stock as discussed above. Mrs. Griffin was given a salary increase effective April 1, 2010 to an annual salary of $180,000. This salary increase accrued in 2010 because Global Tech was without resources to pay the salary increase. This employment agreement was filed on March 25, 2010 as exhibit 10.1 to a current report of the Company on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. Mrs. Griffin’s employment contract has been extended at December 31, 2012 until December 31, 2013, with a salary of $1. Mrs. Griffin’s contract was extended by mutual consent to December 31, 2017.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 8- COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

A) LEASES

Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. currently does not lease, rent or own any property.

B) LITIGATION

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a supplier that is alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $54,712 and a judgment was entered in the matter for $55,512. Global Tech has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and 2015.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from another supplier also alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $4,298. A judgment was entered for $4,352 and the Company has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and 2015.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a third supplier also alleging non-payment of amounts owed for services rendered. The amount asserted was $9,675. Management has included this amount in accounts payable at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. All the notes payable discussed in this section, were incurred before 2002 and before present management took control of the company.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from a supplier alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. Management settled this lawsuit on November 30, 2001 and issued a note payable for $18,000 due September 1, 2002 with interest at 6% per annum in full settlement of this claim. As reflected in Notes Payable, the amount due on this note remains unpaid, and management has indicated that it has received no demand for payment from this note holder.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit from another supplier also alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. This lawsuit was settled on May 1, 2002 by issuing a non-interest bearing note payable for $25,000 due on September 12, 2002. The Company defaulted on this note, has not paid it to date and received a notice of motion dated October 22, 2002, seeking entry of a judgment for $30,000 plus interest effective December 6, 2002. The Company adjusted the note balance to $30,000 and has recorded interest expense at 6% per annum from May 1, 2002, the date of settlement, through the end of 2016.

The Company was a defendant in another lawsuit from a former consultant alleging nonpayment of amounts owed for services rendered. Management has executed a note payable to this plaintiff for $40,000 which was due on July 10, 2002 and remains unpaid. Pursuant to the terms of this note, the Company has recorded interest payable at 7% for the period July 10, 2002 through December 31, 2016.

During April 2012, the Company filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against GeoGreen Biofuels, Inc. and related parties, relating to GeoGreen’s failure to repay $192,000 advanced pursuant to a Bridge Loan Term Sheet. Although litigation is inherently unpredictable, GTII is confident in its position, and intends to pursue the action aggressively. GeoGreen has filed a cross-complaint against the Company and its two officers, the Chief Executive Officer and the President, however the charges against the officers were subsequently dismissed with prejudice. A motion was also passed denying GeoGreen’s motion to strike GTII’s request for punitive damages. For the time being GTII has dropped their lawsuit.

Pursuant to the asset purchase agreement with ARUR, the Company has a contingent liability to payback notes payable in the amount of approximately $400,000 if the Company is successful in collecting on certain accounts receivable. If the receivables are not collected, there is no obligation on the Company to pay off the debt.

During March 2013, the Company was named in an action pertaining to the 75% working interest in the Ownbey Lease. Subsequent to the Company’s purchase of the assets and the termination of the operator, a mechanics lien was filed against the property claiming approximately $267,000 in fees are due to the previous operator. An action is pending in the District Court of Chautauqua County, Kansas, captioned Aesir Energy, Inc. vs. American Resource Technologies, Inc.; Nancy Ownbey Archer; Jimmy Stephen Ownbey; Robbie Faye Butts; Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. and TTII oil & Gas, Inc. Management intends to vigorously contest AESIR’s claims and, at this point, settlement appears unlikely. It has been presented in the County Court that some of ARUR’s Directors have acted without authorization in this matter, and GTII’s management is assessing how to proceed at this time. No monetary claims have been asserted against GTII or TTII Oil & Gas, Inc. The Company has made several attempts to recover the shares of GTII stock paid to ARUR for the asset acquisition and the various costs and expenses expended by GTII in fulfillment of its obligations under the contract with ARUR. The failure of non-litigation attempts to resolve the matter resulted in filing an action for declaratory judgment in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case#17-CV-0698. On the 3rd of February 2017, GTII filed an action for declaratory relief in the Eastern District of New York, for the purpose of recovering the costs, expenses and consideration paid to ARUR for the rights and benefits associated with an Oil and Gas transaction entered into between the parties on December 31st 2012. The action by GTII is predicated on the underlying contract for the sale of the assets of ARUR being vacated by a local Kansas Court on the basis that the company and its officers lacked the authority to enter into the contract. Because of that decision GTII lost all interest in the transaction, their associated benefits and any financial gain that may have been anticipated. Attempts were made to resolve this without litigation but have been unsuccessful. The matter is proceeding accordingly. The Company has made several attempts to recover the shares of GTII, f/k/a TTI stock paid to ARUR for the asset acquisition and the various costs and expenses expended by GTII in fulfillment of its obligations under the contract with ARUR. The failure of non-litigation attempts to resolve the matter resulted in filing an action for declaratory judgment in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case#17-CV-0698. As of this writing the case has not yet been decided.

C) EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Effective October 1, 2007, the Company entered into a two-year employment agreement with David Reichman, Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to which Mr. Reichman was paid an annual salary of $250,000, payable in semi-monthly installments. In addition, Mr. Reichman may be paid a bonus or bonuses during each year, as determined at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors and receive stock options to purchase 1.2 million shares of common stock as discussed above. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Board of Directors approved the extension of this contract an additional two years from the date of expiration, at an annual salary of $500,000. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Board of Directors approved the extension of this contract until December 31, 2013 with a salary of $1. Mr. Reichman’s salary has been accruing because Global Tech is without the resources to pay the salary in full. This employment agreement was filed on November 7, 2007, as exhibit 99.2 to a current report of the Company on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Reichman’s contract has been extended by mutual consent to December 31, 2017.

Effective April 1, 2009, the Company entered into a three-year employment agreement with Kathy Griffin, President, pursuant to which Mrs. Griffin was paid an annual salary of $127,500, payable in semi-monthly installments. In addition, Mrs. Griffin may be paid a bonus or bonuses during each year, as determined at the discretion of the CEO, and receive stock options to purchase shares of common stock as discussed above. Mrs. Griffin was given a salary increase effective April 1, 2010 to an annual salary of $180,000. This salary increase accrued in 2010 because Global Tech was without resources to pay the salary increase. This employment agreement was filed on March 25, 2010 as exhibit 10.1 to a current report of the Company on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. Mrs. Griffin’s employment contract has been extended at December 31, 2012 until December 31, 2013, with a salary of $1. Mrs. Griffin’s contract was extended by mutual consent to December 31, 2017.