pseudonym58
Ad revenue usually, without this entity having to go to the effort of creating content itself. The 'claimed rights holder' gets the any ad revenue instead of the uploader (see https://thelegalguide.org/understanding-youtube-copyright-claims-how-they-affect-your/ for information).
As far as I have seen in other situations with content I have uploaded, even if the uploader has selected not to monetise, I think the video can still be monetised by the rights holder. The community group I upload for doesn't monetise our videos, they are just for family and friends so not a huge audience, but the ones involving modern songs often have ads appearing on them. That said, we've never had such an aggressive claim that demands the video be taken down completely. The video gets to stay up for family and friends to enjoy, the copyright holder has a chance of making a bit of ad revenue if they want (fair, since the songs are still under copyright, although sometimes they just assert their copyright to specify that the video can't be monetised by anybody), and no strikes against the channel. What I haven't tried is seeing if keeping them more private (e.g. by link share only) reduces the occurrence.
So Jane had four options:
- Wait for YT to take the video down and receive a strike, then file a counter-notification - seems like a reasonable choice to pursue this for anybody with the time and energy but there is risk (is the process fair?)
- Delete the video herself - nobody gets to enjoy Jane's work, but nobody benefits from it financially
- 'Negotiate' with the 'claimed rights holder' - not a real option as they appeared to take a hard stance for some unknown reason (building a reputation to intimidate others perhaps?)
- Drop her objection to the copyright claim, allow it to stand, and keep the video up - the 'claimed rights holder' wins the jackpot by taking control of somebody else's work and getting a reputattion that they are not worth fighting.
As people say, if you don't pay for it, you're the product.
