When a claim is filed through content-ID, the claiming company basically gets two options: disable all ads (taking out any revenue for the uploader), or run ads and get paid out. They also get to pick how many ads to run, which means a three second segment can insert minutes of ads into a video. They can also mute audio during infringing sections, or block videos in certain countries.

Stephanie Sterling famously came up with a trick to make their videos run without ads, even when including fair use content: by intentionally including content from multiple companies, each with different preferred monetisation preferences, introducing a conflict in the Youtube content-ID system that didn't get resolved automatically. Their videos were intentionally run without ads, being supported by Patreon and all, and companies kept claiming sections for themselves and inserting ads into videos.

Bizarre that to shield oneself from content ID bullshit (like including a three second snippet of a Ninendo trailer blocking an entire video), one needs to intentionally infringe on more copyright, but that was the Youtube system of yesteryear.

I don't know if the system still works like that, but based on the seemingly random snippets included in Sterling's videos I'm guessing they're still applying this trick.

In theory one could take this further, uploading parts of one's own video to content-ID so the system hands over some partial control over the content, but I feel like Youtube wouldn't take too kindly to that method.

Ads are automatically applied to the video and the scammer gets the ad money