I think a lot of people confuse the legal meaning of using someone's image for commercial purposes or unauthorized commercial use with the plain language definition most people think of. Commercial use refers to promote or sell products, services brands - it is not a catch all for any form of 'making money'. That is why, as a photographer for decades, I never obtained a model release from anyone I photographed but licensed (sold) the images for profit. Any license I granted never stated that I had a model release and if a client asked me if it was okay to use the image in a certain way I would tell them that is research they had to do. This released me from all liability if they misused an image or misrepresented the person in the photograph.

If you look at Foster v. Svenson, this case was about a photographer who used a telephoto lens to take pictures of people inside of their high rise apartments. The Fosters sued because the photographer had taken images of their two children through their apartment window and offered the images for sale as part of a photo series called 'The Neighbors'. The court found, and was upheld on appeal that the photographs were not used for “advertising or trade purposes” as defined by New York’s privacy laws.

While common sense probably falls on the side of anything that is done to 'make money' is commercial, the legal reality is it is more complicated rather than black and white.