jennifer was pretty pregnant and she she has beautiful twins

All of these famous celebs are rich enough to fulfill their biggest fantasies AND give to charity if they want. They are not doing anything but exploiting the child for extra change. The celebs that sell these and receive outrageous amounts of money seem either very greedy and most likely love the attention.

You can be a famous celeb without having photographers follow you around. You don’t even have to relocate your family to a remote country to do it. Angelina Jolie never really needed to give birth in Namibia, which was more of a ridiculous fiasco than quietly staying in the states and not having the paparazzi on speed dial when you’re in labor. Like I said, celebs that pimp their personal lives love attention, and a bit of money won’t hurt.

And there goes my two cents. It’s not my life or anything, but if I had a baby now and was offered a lot of money no way would I accept the offer.

I think regarding celebrity baby pictures, that it is the parent’s choice whether or not the money from the pictures should be donated to a charity or not. I also think if they decide Not to donate the money, there is nothing wrong with that, why should it be? They have a right to make money off of it if they choose to and it makes the paparazzi less aggressive to find the money shot since that shot was already taken. Isn’t it? So, takes the power away from paps and gives it to the parents which they should have. I think if they keep the money from the pictures, it should go into an account or trust for the child though. That’s what makes most sense to me.

I see what you are trying to say Tess, but I don’t think that what Parker/Boderick or Julia Roberts did by sending thier pictures in to the media was smart. Lets look at how everyone benefited. The public got what they wanted, the media got profit from sales off of the pictures, and the parents kept their children and themselves from being hounded by the paps for a first pic. If the parents sell to the media versus just sending in a picture, the public gets what they want, the media gets profit from the sales, and the parents keep their children and themselves from being hounded by the media AND they get money to do with as they please (charity, trust for kids, shopping spree). And in my opinion, selling the picture isn’t encouraging the media. WE, the public who buy these magazines and so forth, encourage the media. The parents are finally profiting off of something that they know is going to happen and everyone but they are benefiting from and I will say it again, it’s their child. And they are saving themselves a little from being hounded by paps for the first picture of their kids. To me that’s smart. To me if they give the picture away, it’s like saying, “Here, have a picture of MY child to show the whole world and make money off it”. By selling it they are saying, “I know you are going to get it anyway so here, have a picture of my child to show the whole world and make money off of it AND why don’t you give me some of that money you are going to make since, you know, I AM the parent.” That’s just the way I see it.

While I agree that if the paps are going to profit then the parents should too (and can do as they please with the money), my point was that the parents shouldn’t feed into the frenzy in the first place if they want to at least attempt to have some privacy for their kids.

Yes, their kids will always be photographed when walking down the street with mom and dad, and the parents can do nothing about it, but they can say that they won’t pose with the kids in magazines. That just opens the door and encourages more pictures, which the parents claim not to want. Paps are not something the parents have control over, but they definitely have control over whether or not to pose with the kids in magazines.

I think Parker/Broderick did a smart thing, and Julia Roberts, I think, just took her own picture of her kids and released it to the media. And some celebrity kids are only seen in glimpses with their parents (Christian Bale’s daughter, Carrie Anne Moss’ kids).

I admire those parents a lot for realizing that while the kids will at some point be photographed for just being a celebrity kid, there’s no need to encourage the media.

This is a very interesting topic. I’ve enjoyed reading the different opinions. I see where a lot of you are coming from when you say that it’s a ridiculous amount of money, and all for a picture of a baby who has no idea that he/she is being exposed without his/her permission to world that he/she has no idea about yet. As we know, their parents chose this life, but they did not. But that’s the way of our society. I remember hearing as I grew up how much certain entertainers were paid in a year and I would flip every time. I just couldn’t understand why a person would be paid 10, 15 or sometimes 20 millions of dollars to spend maybe 6 months making a movie or a million dollars for one episode of a tv show. Or why professional athletes were paid over 50 million dollars for a 5 year contract. Now of course some of these entertainers/athletes have to put themselves through months of training, they have to put their bodies through a lot and some have to be away from their families for months at a time, but to me, NONE of that compares to the training of those in the armed forces or the time they spend away from their families, NOT being pampered on a set or spending their nights away from home in lavish hotels but in foreign countries sleeping in uncomfortable situations and literally risking their lives. Not to mention other professionals like teachers, policeman, etc that are ridiculously underpaid and undervalued. I never understood it. But over the years I’ve become numb to it all. We can agree or disagree about it all we want, but that’s our society and actually, these people aren’t paying themselves this money, WE(the public) pay for it with our interest.

What I wouldn’t agree with is parents having a baby, the paps taking pictures of their child and selling it to a magazine and the public buying these magazines mainly for the pictures of some other person’s child, and everyone benefiting but the parents of this child. IMO, that’s the ridiculous part of it all. So yes they should get a piece of the pie because, for goodness sakes, IT IS THEIR CHILD. The amount of money is decided upon based on what how much the magazines think the PUBLIC is going to pay for these pictures. In other words, the magazines give the parents 4 million or so because they probably make 8 million or so from the sales. And I agree with those that say that whatever they choose to do with the money is there business and absolutely no one else’s. It really doesn’t matter how comfortable YOU are with it.lol I’m saying this all to say that it’s just basic supply and demand, and it’s the way of the world that our parents created and that we continue to fuel in the dame direction.

Celebrities that sell their babies first pics, do it because they want too not because they have too, because even if you show the first pictures that doesn’t stop the paparazzi from wanting a picture of your child for the rest of their lives. Look at keri russell, jennifer garner, naomi watts kate hudson, neither of them sold their first baby pictures and we have seen their kids many times. In fact there are adorable pictures of violet everyday, and we know the world and the paparazzi know what she looks like at this point, but she is the daughter of jennfer garner and ben affleck, so for the rest of her life, pictures will be taken of her and other celebrity children. Salma hayek did a good thing, she released a picture and didn’t make any money off it. That being said I find nothing wrong with a celebrity selling their baby pictures. It’s their kid and the reason they are getting millions is because people like us who are on a baby site, will go out and buy people magazine to see their baby pics. Most of the time magazines with first baby pics, end up making a lot of money. Although I just read christina aguilera’s people cover with max didn’t sell well at all. But I’m kinda not surprised in general even her own magazine covers tend to not do well. But in jennifer lopez case or say a halle berry, I can see their baby pics making a lot of money. I think very few celebrities donate the money to charity, and quite frankly if you say hey I’m donating the money to charity, it kinda looks like you want a pat on the back, like good job. If it was me I would put the money in a trust fund for my kid and say hey look you made all this money the minute you were born, just for being yourself. People tend to think celebrities with all their money owe us something, and in reality they don’t. It’s their money they work for it, if they wanna put their kid on a magazine cover every month or spend a million dollars on a pair of shoes, that’s their business. That being said they shouldn’t complain about the media or attention when they use it to their advantage, nor should they try to say give money to africa or places like that, because with all the money they get, they can feed a whole country if they really feel like it lol.

I love the celebrity baby photos as much as any other person. (actually I just love baby photos..period)
But why does it have to be a major financial transaction? Either you want to share photos of your child with the world or you don’t.
MILLIONS of dollars should not be exchanging hands over something like this.

Since celebrities are not protected from the overzealous paparazzi, I can understand why they would just sell their babies pictures. Makes life easier I would think. Secondly whatever they decide to do what the money is their business. I think people feel the need to tell other who make large sums of money what to do with their money. I always hear people say what so and so should do with their money since they make or have so much of it. It’s their business.

Well said Renee! ITA!