[jhugg]

IANAL, but fair use doesn’t cover commercial art used to sell something, like this DVD packaging. If it did, the stock photography business might crumble overnight.

[Teeer]

Nope, commercial or non-profit it doesn't matter. See Myth #1: http://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use-youtube/

[mthoms]

There are 4 criteria used for evaluating whether fair use applies. The first being:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

To be clear, commercial usage doesn't automatically indicate a violation but it would be considered.

[cooper12]

IANAL. Fair use doesn't have a strict definition and depends on a bunch of factors that would be considered in a court:

* the purpose and character of your use

* the nature of the copyrighted work

* the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

* the effect of the use upon the potential market.

(https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/)

You certainly can include copyrighted content in commercial art, for example if it's a single second of a video, the main subject of discussion (such as in a review), a small portion of a complete work (like a quote), and more. Non-commercial use could still affect the potential market for an original (such as by outselling it or defacing it). So a lot of it depends on how much you're using, how you're transforming it, and how it affects the original.

[Alex3917]

> fair use doesn’t cover commercial art used to sell something, like this DVD packaging.

Slavish reproductions can't be copyrighted in the first place, so it's irrelevant.