First off, I am not a lawyer, so if you are really worried about it, it would be a good idea to have your particular situation reviewed by someone with a law degree. That said, I think I can answer part of what you ask with some confidence.

1. “NonCommercial” licenses mean “you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” In the classic sense that would mean printing it and selling it, publishing it, or otherwise profiting directly from the use of it. I think that placing it in an article on a website that also contains ads is a gray area that may be permitted, but I can’t say definitively.

2. If the photo is licensed to you under an “Attribution” license, you absolutely must give credit to its creator in your text somewhere. Under the terms of the six core Creative Commons licenses, you also must link back to the license itself.

A lot of these types of questions are addressed in the Creative Commons FAQ

2) If I use photo licensed as CC in my website next to the article, should I also state (in the credit line), that the photo is licensed as CC? Or is it required only when I would redistribute the work?

Thank you.

Because there are so many nuances to the ways in which creators may wish for their work to be used by others, the Creative Commons emerged, creating whole new gradations within the copyright system….

It’s true that the Creative Commons licenses haven’t actually been put to the test in American courts, but they have stood up to trial in the Netherlands and Spain, which is at least some indication, although I have no idea what the legal climate is like in those countries.

I also recognize that many pros and established photographers are (understandably) resistant to the idea of charitable contribution of their work, at least in anonymous-use situations like Wikipedia (which differs from giving your work to a specific charitable organization on purpose).

Nevertheless, I do stand behind my proposition that judicious release of certain works under certain circumstances is a greater boon to a burgeoning photographer’s exposure than a detriment to their profits (which may be slight).

“What’s Creative Commons?”

They’re completely unaware of what it is. once I explain it to them, they’re generally adamantly against it. Not like MAFIAA levels of adamant, but pretty against it. Their argument being that as a photographer, your copyright on your work is everything. Without that, you have nothing.

I currently list my photos as all rights reserved, but I’ll happily let student organizations or charities use them for cheap/free. I like the idea of Creative Commons, but I don’t like the fact that it’s still legally untested.

Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I’ll have a lot more faith in CC once there are some legal precedents supporting it.