It's been thought-through, but not as a matter of set policy. As others have pointed out, whether CC noncommerciality -- something defined with excruciatingly precise legal vagueness-- includes proximity to advertising is an ongoing debate well beyond our corner of the web. In this case, indeed, it's apparently a photo by someone Cory knows, of something Cory owns, so permission may already have been sought and gained, the representations in the OP notwithstanding. We're just unable to verify the circumstances as he's on vacation. But still, if we cocked up, we apologize unreservedly to the photographer.

Every Day! But usually after tea.

As the photo is by an acquaintance of Cory's and is of (I believe) his own hammock, we're actually almost certain that he had permission to post that image. But as he's away on vacation and isn't available to confirm, we're doing our best to make sure no-one's gets their hammock in a twist.

The funny thing is, we're pretty sure that Cory has permission, but he's on vacation. After all, it is a pic of his own hammock.

On the assumption the objection may be from the photographer--we haven't heard from them directly, as far I as know, though Cory's on vacation and not available--we've removed the CC-licensed image. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. We haven't really thought through CC non-com stuff on pages with advertising at BB as a matter of policy--it's on each poster's conscience. But I know that Cory often seeks permission directly from photographers on flickr, and that other editors do likewise. Thanks, any many apologies if we have err.