A Creative Commons license and "copyright" are two DIFFERENT things entirely. Copyright is what the creator holds. A "license" is a transfer of right of use, for whatever specifics are spelled out in the license.

The "non-commercial" license actually precludes what you are suggesting ... you must use another license. Yes, the artist holds the copyright. But once you have granted a licensed use the work, you MUST use a different license for a different use of the work. A license is for a specific use of a work. Period. It has little to do with copyright aside from the fact that, without holding the copyright, you generally cannot issue a license for use of a work.

That's the whole point of USING a license and it is why there is so much misinformation about how Creative Commons works and confusion about how to use it. You need to look at the other kinds of license that exist with CC and understand how they are different. One size does NOT fit all circumstances.

BTW, your link is pointing to a UK license; artists in other regions should use a license appropriate the region in which they reside or where they wish to have the work licensed.

Why I am taking the time to be so precise about all of this? Because I have USED CC for a fair bit of my work for some time and I want more people to use CC. But I also want them to understand that they need to take responsibility for their creations. SL is filled with artist/musician wannabes (to say nothing of the Gallery entrepreneurs-wannabes who are causing all of this grief) who are not doing any of their homewoprk about these things and it makes it difficult to get good clear information out there and get Creative Commons in use.

So yeah, I'm a little picky about what gets said about CC...