New site photo policy

Going forward, you will not see photos of celebrity parents trying to shield their children from being photographed; parents who are upset about their child being photographed, or upset children on the Celebrity Baby Blog.  We’ve danced around this in the past, but it’s something we’ve decided we can no longer sit on the fence about.  We don’t feel comfortable publishing them or even linking to them.  If a parent really doesn’t want us to see their child, we have to respect that.  As it is, we toe the line with the content of this site!

The impetus for stating this new site policy is because there are some new photos of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt in India with mom Angelina Jolie and of Gwyneth Paltrow with son Moses Martin in Barcelona that are making the rounds on the internets that we’ve gotten a bunch of emails about.  Yes, we are aware of them but they give us the heebie jeebies.  Sorry guys.  For those of you who really want to see them, there are other sites that have them.

Comments

Why are you mentioning that they exist if you don’t even tell readers where to see them? I don’t understand why this post is here if all you’re doing is stating that the photos exist. What is the point of that? If you don’t feel comfortable posting or linking to the photos then what is the point in even mentioning them?

- holly on October 20th, 2006

Great decision.
The ones who are eager to see them will find them at other sources…

- Sandra from Germany on October 20th, 2006

I respect their desire of privacy but why saying you have the pictures if you don’t want to publish or to link to them?? It’s like “ok we have those pictures but we keep them because it’s not a good thing to publish”

- esther Panda on October 20th, 2006

I think this is a good idea because – as Sandra said – if people really want to find them then they can from another source but you can see how uncomfortable the celebrity/parent is and they may have signed up for the photogs and all of that, but their children never did. If, as a parent, they feel that they want to keep their children from being photographed then that’s their right.

- Lizzy on October 20th, 2006

Holly, they’re probably mentioning it so they don’t have to respond personally to everyone who sends them an e-mail asking them to post the pictures or asking why they have ignored the pictures, etc. A preemptive “no, we’re not going to post them”, if you will. I applaud the decision.

- eBirdie on October 20th, 2006

I am a little bothered by the fact that Shiloh has been so hidden from the public when the Jolie-Pitts have no problem parading Maddox and Zahara around for anyone to see..in addition, I didn’t find that particular photo disturbing but that could just be me…

- marissa on October 20th, 2006

Holly and Esther – we get many, many emails in the tips box linking to the photos, and then readers ask or wonder why we have not posted what they’ve sent in. This is an explanation.

- Sarah, CBB News Editor on October 20th, 2006

Bravo. A blog with integrity.

- Anonymous on October 20th, 2006

Kudos on a very respectful decision. Personally, I’m more comfortable visiting the site with this explicit policy. It feels far less intrusive, which is good for everyone – most importantly, the developing infants! Thanks for running a classy show.

- Kristy on October 20th, 2006

I commend you on this. I’m sorry to ask but I’m just wondering… Is this a ‘from now on thing?’ because wouldn’t you consider Danielle Spencer covering up Tennyson?

- dorrie on October 20th, 2006

okay, okay i see from both sides of this story but if you really want to delve a little deeper into the issue we’d realize that everyone who reads this site is a people watcher. almost every photo on this site is taken by paparazzi without the permisson of the celebrity, by that token in reality all of these photos are essentially the same whether or not the parent is attempting to cover the child or not. these celebrities would probably all prefer that they weren’t photographed, but givin their professions, it is something that comes with the territory. i think that the pictures should be published on CBB after all that is why we come here to read the site.

- alisha on October 20th, 2006

Excellent job. The photos of the aprents shielding their children have ALWAYS made me feel wrong at looking at them so I dont. Great job and keep up the great work.

- M on October 20th, 2006

Shiloh is only 4 months old. shes too young to be exposed to crazy paps. Maddox and Zahara were older they were “paraded around”.

- lola on October 20th, 2006

why is this courtesy just extended to Celebs with hands over their kids faces??

In reality, do you think any celebrity is for having their kids picture taken? Just because a celebrity hasn’t got a hand, blanket, mask covering their childs face doesn’t mean anyone has the right to snap away.

Danielle or any other mom that posts here or replies, are you ok with pictures of your kids being taken by total strangers and then being sold and published with you having no say what so ever?

If you want to make a statement, do one that excludes ALL pictures that are “out-and-about” unless the celeb is actually posing with their child, then you can see that permission is expressed by their willingness to stand there and be snapped.

- heather on October 20th, 2006

Very respectful decision. I agree with it 100%

- Shannan on October 20th, 2006

I disagree with the poster who said Brad and Angelina “parade” the other two kids around. I think they just live their life and paparazzi follow them around while doing it. I’m glad it isn’t me and my child. One well meaning stranger started taking pics of my kid in the park and it gave me the creeps and I asked her to stop. Then again, I certanly click on every picture this site links to.

FWIW I think it is a great decision by this site – it reads as very true to the, er, “mission statement” of the purpose of this blog.

- lulululu on October 20th, 2006

Good point Marissa…why did Angelina and Brad allow Maddox and Z to be photographed frequently, but not the new baby????

- Amy on October 20th, 2006

I too applaud your decision and thanks for taking the time to explain it to your readers.

- Lexy on October 20th, 2006

THANK you for doing this! I, too, am very disturbed by seeing these photos. I can’t help but think of the trauma it may be inflicting on these children. They deserve peace and privacy.

THEY don’t understand, and we have no right to infringe on their lives or their physical and emotional safety.

- thejarviclan on October 20th, 2006

Good for you guys. I always feel voyeuristic enough looking at this site, it’s easier on my conscience when you do the weeding out for me

- Chiara on October 20th, 2006

why bother having this website then….?

- nicole on October 20th, 2006

Aw, it’s a shame it has to come to this– a parent shielding their child from dozens of flashbulbs. i commend you guys!! yes, i want to see these babies as much as the next person, but i sure wouldn’t want to be the mother, trying in vain to keep my baby’s face private, and keep them from being scared.

good thinking!

- jaQinthebox on October 20th, 2006

Great decision CBB !!!!

This site has dignity & class – which is why I enjoy coming here.

- Heavenly_Hibiscus on October 20th, 2006

After you wrote this, you posted pictures of Danielle Spencer/ Russell Crowe covering their youngest child? Confused.

- Olga on October 20th, 2006

Sandra from Germany…they didnt say that they have the pictures they said that they are aware of them!!! i think that that is a really good respectfull desicion and we should all feel that way, as they said if you really wanna see em find em somewhere else!!!

- Jess on October 20th, 2006

I agree if the parents truly don’t want to have their kids’ photo taken but in many cases they just shield their faces from the flashes–if Gwyneth lets everyone take a photo of Moses a week after birth and never shields Apple, I think it’s fair to say it’s about the glare more than the desire for privacy. I would agree if the photos were taken in a private area but not when they’re in public places. It’s your blog so you do whatever suits you, but I think it’s a bit too PC for me.
As far as Angelina shielding Shiloh and not Z.. there is much more interest in Shiloh than ever was in Z or Mad and she knows it. It’s not because she cares more for Shiloh, which, I’m sure is the argument here.

- millie on October 20th, 2006

Good for you! I think that is an exceptional policy. Just one more reason for me to enjoy this website.

- Gigi on October 20th, 2006

CBB?
How do you know that “they” didnt tip off the press to give them a chance to snap a few pics? They often do this to let the paps get pics…

That being said…
OMG that lil girl looks just like Bradley!

- preesi on October 20th, 2006

Firstly I love your site and Im not meaning to start an arguement or offend anyone. BUT the quote: “If a parent really doesn’t want us to see their child, we have to respect that. We respect their desire for privacy and we hope you do too”. To be completely honest, I dont think any celebrity wants papparazzi snapping photos of them and their children on days off- in the park, shopping, geting groceries, walking down the street. Whether they are shielding them or not- which isn’t always possible. Any photos of celebrities on their days off (let me specify that) are invasions of privacy. So for all of you saying “Its makes it easier for me to come to the site” – it makes no difference- maybe it helps your conscience, but nothing else! We are all invading their privacy looking at this site unless the photos have been authorized/published and released by the actual celebrity themselves. Just because Christy Turlington, in your earlier post, doesn’t grab a muslin wrap to put over her babies head, doesnt mean she is happy with it and its not an invasion of privacy- she certainly doesnt look comfortable does she? Does Fred Savage like having a photo of him changing his newborns diaper, by papparazzi spying from the bushes? Of course not!

- i-luv-bubbas on October 20th, 2006

But, you’ve linked to photos of Julia Roberts clearly looking distressed and mama bear and po’d about being photographed.

Seriously, you’re as bad as the paparazzi. What you do is sleazy. Period. Whether parents shield faces or not, they are no fans of CBB. Ask Reece and Gwyneth and all the others. And, I’m no better b/c I like to see the pictures. But at leastI don’t pretend to have integrity!

Be who you are. Don’t pretend to have true concern for the celebs and their kids. If you did, this site wouldn’t exist. Danielle may enjoy throwing Anya’a pictures up, but I have to guess that if the press was hounding her in the same way any of the celebrites are being hounded, she would want to kick some ass.

No doubt this comment will be deleted, which is ok, but Danielle and Sarah, think about it. You eat exploitation.

- mouse on October 20th, 2006

I agree, this demonstrates a great deal of class and integrity.

- aimee on October 20th, 2006

I have seen the pictures of Shiloh and I see what you mean it is a vary distirbing picture we all want to protect our childern and we do
and Joile is doing that we should respect them

- Erik on October 20th, 2006

DON’T PUBLISH Amy and Marissa your not the only ones that questioned how they like to cover Shiloh and not show her as much, but Zahara and Maddox have always been in the spotlight. Other sites people have noticed and mentioned it, plenty of times. And I happen to be a Angelina/Brad fan, and think Shiloh is a beautiful baby. That being said they do seem more protective of her, I saw plenty of pictures of Zahara and Maddox as babies. And Shiloh besides the people cover, you rarely see her face. In regard to not showing the pictures on this site, like Alisa mentioned it seems most celebrities would rather their kid not being on sites or in pictures. So it’s bascially like a double standard because plenty of celebrities even if they don’t have a blanket over their baby, don’t seem thrilled with a camera in front of their face or their child’s face.

- gabriella on October 20th, 2006

I Couldn’t agree more with your decision. Seeing pictures of parents trying to shield their children is wrong, and quite frankly it makes me feel guilty even looking at them.

Its very easy to critique and gawk at others when its not your children!

Respectful decisions like these are what keeps me coming back to your website!

- jess on October 20th, 2006

i really respect this decision, i always feel a little uncomfortable seeing pictures of celebrities children being sheilded by protective parents; they signed up for the photos not their children and if they are bothered enough by the photographers to totally sheild their children then there is something wrong!

- Annika on October 21st, 2006

I agree with this decision. By the way, It really annoys me to hear people say that Angie and Brad “parade” their children around. They are living their lives just as the other celeb moms and dads that we see on this site are. Maddox and Zahara were at least 6 or 7 months old when adopted. Shiloh is not quite 5 months. There were many pics of Angie covering Z up with blankets, or covering up her face when she was an infant. But now, everyone seems to have amnesia about those pics…maybe they werent shown on this site?
The main thing to realize is that the media frenzy surrounding Shiloh is 10 times what it was around Maddox and even Zahara. Brad and Angie, I am sure, love all three children equally.. however they dont live in denial of the increased interest in their “bio” baby. It is the media that makes this distinction.. not the jolie-pitts. They are trying to live as normal a life as possible and keep their family safe. I am sure they know best the way to do so.

- Eva on October 21st, 2006

Well, I agree that there are some creepy pictures out there, the main one that comes to mind is that old one of Violet Affleck in her carseat ages back. But I don’t see how the pictures of Shiloh are so bad, you guys always post pictures of parents with blankets on their babies like that. Not that I’m saying the decision not to post them isn’t a good one, it just seems odd that there has always been pictures like that posted without any kind of comments about them being inappropriate until now.

- Mommyx1 on October 21st, 2006

I applaud your decision. We have such strong instincts to protect our children, especially when they are tiny. Thanks for respecting parents’ efforts and need to shield their babies from the paparazzi. If there were an “unwritten rule” not to print or display photos like these, maybe the paps wouldn’t take them.

- jr on October 21st, 2006

First and foremost: GOOD! I for one am happy to hear that CBB will be respecting the wishes of celebrity parents who are trying to cover their child from the prying paps. It’s a good move.

Dorrie, I don’t think Danielle Spencer was trying to shield Tennyson. I cover my 3 month old son the same way when wearing him. I do it to shield him from the wind and sun and perhaps she was doing the same?

To all those commenting about Angie’s and Brad’s kids… I think maybe they’re keeping her more tucked away because – let’s face it – she’s very sought after right now. They’re being chased down in foreign countries, for pete’s sake. I’d keep her shielded too. I think we saw more of Z and Maddox because they weren’t as hunted down, to be honest. Somehow, the paps seem to think Shiloh is more interesting because she’s their biological child. Which is rubbish, but you know how the paps loves their crap logic. And Angie and Brad do seem to try to shield Z and Maddox, but not as much now because they are bigger and harder to cover. Unless they pull a Michael Jackson with the masks or something, I doubt Maddox would put up with a blanket over his head every time he stepped foot into public. Z is reaching the age where she probably wouldn’t tolerate it either. I know when I cover my 3 month old son just from the weather or sun, he has a fit.

Alisha, I understand where you’re coming from with what you say. However, I think that there’s a drastic difference between a shielded picture versus, for example, Michelle Williams taking Matilda for a walk in her stroller. They obviously know they’re going to be followed and photographed. If they are coving the child, they should be respected. If they’re not making any effort to cover and hide, then I think it’s not as intrusive because they’re in public.

Lulululu, I agree that it’d be very creepy to have someone photograph my child. But even more so because I’m not a celebrity and there’s no reason for anyone I don’t know, to be photographing my son.

- Marie on October 21st, 2006

Angelina did the same for Zahara. Remember pics of her at a bookstore and trying to hide the little girl? When she adopted Maddox, he was tiny and the hoopla surrounding her was not this huge. When she adopted Zahara she was not officially with Brad and the hoopla was not this huge. Also, the reality is people are more fascinated by the biological child of two big beautiful stars then they were with the older two kids so the paps are out of control with Shiloh.

I agree that these pics should not be posted. I do ask this question though, what is the difference between posting a picture of Angelina hiding Shiloh and one of her just shopping with Shiloh? Aren’t both instrusive? At the end of the day, isn’t having a celebrity baby blog the same as posting inappropriate pictures? I don’t think most of these stars have approved a site that follows their child’s every move, have they?

So in essence, whether these pics are posted or not, this site is still probably engaging in the same idea wich is obsession with celebrity kids.

I am just saying.

- Bee Girl on October 21st, 2006

I completely agree with you not posting the pics…children of celebrities deserve privacy…they are not the ones who chose the spotlight.

I also want to comment on Brad and Angelina covering up Shiloh, but not the other two. I agree that they are just living their life and they need to go about things as normally as they can, but when you are shielding your biological child, but not the adopted ones (especially when they were younger), I think that sends quite a message to the adopted children. Zahara and Maddox were always out and about with Angelina, but Shiloh is NEVER seen! Either show all of them or none of them!

- Spiff on October 21st, 2006

Very pleased to see this. While I’m sometimes interested in celebrities and thei children, I’m repulsed to see pictures that are not “allowed” by the parents. No one, regardless of wealth or fame, should have to be hounded, let alone their small children.

brava.

- thordora on October 21st, 2006

Remember when Violet Affleck was born and the watch was on to see her adorable little face…there were so many photos of a blanket-covered carseat on this site…why start now? And why mention it like you want credit for it? It’s celebrity-babies.com. Have you ever hear a celebrity say they’re so glad ANY photo of their child was taken? I visit the site daily and I don’t pretend not to (I’m the go-to person on celebrity baby info with my friends) but please, don’t try to convince us all now that high standards are in place.

- augustmoon6075 on October 21st, 2006