As someone who uses Creative Commons-licensed content from time to time, I've tended to steer clear of NC because of the confusion too.
A common interpretation (and the one I used to use myself) was that the non-commercial protection was meant to cover use of content as a fundamental piece of a commercial venture. So a photo on a t-shirt, a song being sold on a compilation CD, etc. But using a photo within the context of a blog post on a commercial blog would be ok.
It seems, though, another interpretation is that any usage that's even vaguely related to a commercial interest is verboten. And since no-one has drawn the line in the sand on this, I'll steer clear of NC stuff now unless it really is a hobby project.
Has the wording changed? Because the CC were having this argument amongst themselves for a long time due to it not being obvious.. they even opened the floodgates and asked content creators to help clear it up for them. It would be great if they had finally resolved it.
In future, I'd probably do that as I'm bringing on editorial staff for my various ventures. So far, it's just quicker to avoid certain content as running a one man media business is hard and I have to run fast :-) Long term? I hope to do what you say because there is surely some great -NC content out there where being used on commercial properties could help the creator as much as the publisher (while still avoiding someone taking advantage of them).
A common interpretation (and the one I used to use myself) was that the non-commercial protection was meant to cover use of content as a fundamental piece of a commercial venture. So a photo on a t-shirt, a song being sold on a compilation CD, etc. But using a photo within the context of a blog post on a commercial blog would be ok.
It seems, though, another interpretation is that any usage that's even vaguely related to a commercial interest is verboten. And since no-one has drawn the line in the sand on this, I'll steer clear of NC stuff now unless it really is a hobby project.