I'm not an expert but I think the confusion is whether a non-commercial license is defined in terms of being prohibited to sell or distribute original works for revenue, this is well defined in such an agreement. Since your not directly selling the material then this definition is not violated.
As for the placement of ads on the same page I'd look at it like this, if you've written content which is original and the ads are contextually served to that content only (which is the general case) then your not profiting from the photo itself your profiting from the content you've provided to that page.
That's probably the best way to look at this type of scenario regarding secondary states of income involving the display of primary work, though this interpretation could be a little fuzzy at times. If you go ahead with this or any future publications involving pictures (I don't know about audio or video streaming though) try to contact the creator of the work and if they are for some reason unreachable
I'd place a disclaimer on your website/weblog stating that if any material seen on the site is in violation of any agreement involving the licensing of or similar rights thereof then it will be removed. This way you at least show honest intent regarding the usage of such material. In the long run I think that this situation could be interpreted as being commercial and to be on the safe side I'd outsource 'commercial usage applies' CC agreements.