Rumor: Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves hoping to sell baby photos?

Even if charity gets the spoils, I find this trend incredibly distasteful.

- principesa on May 20th, 2008

I couldn’t agree more, principesa.
Its sickening how these people are putting their babies out there at birth but will demand privacy later on. Just don’t start it.
I hope this trend goes away quickly.

- moore on May 20th, 2008

I hope they plan on giving it away to charity, otherwise it’s just stupid imho.

- Hea on May 20th, 2008

Now, with all due respect to Matthew and Camilla, are people really that interested in seeing their baby? People are intrigued, sure but I don’t think photographers would be pulling their hair out and getting all stressed because they couldn’t get a picture.

I understand this ‘trend’ more for people like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, even Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to a certain extent because you just know they would be persued relentlessly until someone got the first shot.

Also as I’ve stated before, it’s blogs like CBB, along with tabloid magazines, which have heightened the interest in celebrity children. I’m not knocking this website becuae I think it’s fantastic and offers so much more than just news and photos of celebrity children but, you can’t facilitate the upkeep of a website like this, which buys paparazzi photographs, and then expect celebrities to not want any control on how and when their children are photographed.

Just my honest opinion.

- Amanda on May 20th, 2008

It really disgusts me how these magazines will pay such insane amounts of money for a photo. There is so much struggle in our economy and people who are without food and shelter due to things like job loss, illness etc. It seems to me so many better things can be done with that money than to buy photos. Now as a self employed person I understand the magazines need to make money but it still it just too much. I do hope that they and other celebs will give the money to charity and help those who are truly in need of that money.

- heather on May 20th, 2008

I can somewhat understand that they may want control how their child is “introduced” to the public and that maybe if they cut a deal with a publication to do so they may somehow protect the safety of their child and themselves later from the paps (cus we all pretty much now how far they will go in some cases to get their shots), but i don’t know if i agree with the “selling” of the first pics…it is completely their choice however and i don’t think anyone should criticize their choice…if they choose to donate the proceeds to charity then that’s great..if they choose not to then that’s their own choice too…

- T on May 20th, 2008

Btw… principesa I totally agree with you. I hope I didn’t imply that the money spent on these photos is okay as long as it’s given to charity. I agree it’s distasteful and just hope that if these celebs are going to accept the money that they at least do something worthwhile with it as they clearly don’t need it.

- heather on May 20th, 2008

I don’t get the people judging celebrities who do sell their children’s photos. How can you enjoy seeing the pictures and then attack them for it. It kind of hurts your whole argument right there. If you don’t agree with something, you aren’t going to be showing support for it at the same time. I would rather they get the money than complete strangers with cameras.

- Renee on May 20th, 2008

I would HOPE that this money is going to charity, but I have a feeling it is not.

Personally, I think it takes a lot of balls for stars to scoop out magazines to sell their baby pictures (and not like, the magazines approaching the celebrities post-birth).

I’m also surprised that 3 magazines have already offered more then $1 million.

- Sarah on May 20th, 2008

I hear you, Amanda. I like Matthew and all, but I’ll see the baby photos eventually on some site or magazine or whatever. I’m not jumping the bit to see baby photos. I can see what you’re saying about the celebs who are more in the spotlight. I honestly can’t say what I would do if I was in their shoes if I was THAT famous. It’s a tough call.

I think a lot of people like to ooh and ahh over photos, but I don’t see too many people going nuts with anticipation over future baby shots, so I don’t think the people who have problems with this are judging harshly or attacking anyone. I think you can enjoy photos without having to love the idea of baby photo selling.

- Jen on May 20th, 2008

I think this is one of the tackiest trends with celebrities these days, getting paid for photos. My other trend that is tacky is the free stuff getting thrown at celebrities all over the place, when they out-earn the average person by at least 10 times and can easily afford to buy whatever they may need. There are people all over the place who can’t afford the cost of gas to go to $4 a gallon on top of already rising grocery costs and increasing taxes and celebrities get to go to things like gifting suites and have their baby showers sponsored and have their kids pictures paid $1 million or more for. It is tacky as hell. They should pay for everything themselves. I also don’t like that celebrities who are getting paid by photo agencies who take their pictures. (Tori Spelling) She poses for Startraks so they get good pictures and she is getting paid by them.

As for whether I want to see this baby in particular, not really. Matthew is not one of my favorite celebrities, and Camila is an unknown except for being his baby mama. It looks like Camila hit pay dirt when she found herself pregnant by a famous man.
If they were both celebrities I would maybe care, but I don’t care about them and it is tacky of them to sell the photos anyway.

- Beverley on May 20th, 2008

I totally agree with Renee…just by coming to this site or pretty much any site for that matter, and viewing the pictures that are posted, your just continuing the trend…yes granted not all the photos on this site or others are paparazzi photos, but still…if you want to argue about celebs selling THEIR child’s photos and how it’s bad and disgusting and whatever else, then fine, but keep in mind that when you view photos online the majority of them are coming from the very same sources that your against.

- T on May 20th, 2008

I think if celebrities wanna sell their children’s pics, than that’s their business, as long as it’s not a double standard. In another words don’t say how you hate the media or paparazzi or how much they focus on your children, if you yourself are selling your baby pics. Matthew hasn’t been one of those celebrities that seems bothered or annoyed with the paparazzi much and from seeing him on interviews, he seems like an easy going guy. Now if someone like jessica alba goes out and sells her baby pics, someone who honestly looks pissed all the time in paparazzi pics and has said how she hates media attention, well you don’t hate it enough, when it comes to doing magazine interviews or selling baby pics. Look how jennifer garner did it, both ben affleck and her aren’t exactly nobodies but she just let the paparazzi get pics whenever, same as keri russell, kate hudson, and salma hayek released one picture but made no money or did no big photoshoot. I heard halle berry isn’t gonna sell her baby pics either, even though she eas offered a great deal of money. So it doesn’t bother me if they wanna sell their baby pics, ut’s their child honestly, but than don’t act like it’s all the media’s fault when you yourself are playing into it.

- brooke on May 20th, 2008

i think a lot of people find it distasteful that these celebs get money for these photos but i have to say that i guess i am just as guilty because i know i want to see a glimpse of this new little bundle and ill want to see brad and angie’s too. so if they should go to the highest bidder than so be it….but i do hope that the money goes to charity or to these babies futures…..not that i think they’d be lacking!

- gigi on May 20th, 2008

I love how the title of this post begins with RUMOR, yet everyone here is making comments as though it was posted as a fact. Let’s give Matt and Camila the benefit of the doubt first and wait and see if this is even true.

- Jessica L. on May 20th, 2008

I have said it before, and I will continue to say it…..

Just once I wish celebrities would agree to have their newborns photographed by some magazine, and I don’t care in the least which one, but refused to be paid for them….”just take the pictures so we can make sure that they get out there for the public to see the way we want them to be seen, but we absolutely refuse to be paid for them in any way!”

Yeah, I know it will never happen, but just once…

- Henrietta on May 20th, 2008

I agree with a previous poster. I’ve been a fan of Matthew’s since “Dazed and Confused” but is he honestly all that famous? I’ve never even heard of Camila before this.

I just can’t imagine any magazine thinking that paying them $1,000,000 for baby pics would pay off in increased sales. Perhaps I’m underestimating their level of celebrity or the public’s interest, but the baby of a complete unknown and Matthew McConaughey just doesn’t seem that big a seller to me.

- Jillian on May 20th, 2008

I agree with the sentiment expressed by most posters.

I just don’t understand this “trend”. I would understand if the baby was going to be kept indoors until they turn 18 but that is not the case. Also, the argument that the paparazzi would pursue them until they get the first shot is also quite ludicrous since there is an easy way to combat that. Look at Nicole Ritchie and her baby, she took the money, did the shoot and weeks later after the PEOPLE cover came out, she and her baby are out and about, Max Aguilera is also out and about, Shiloh made her way out and so did Suri so what exactly was the point of money exchanging hands since the children will be photographed with their babies anyway?

The easy way to do stop this lie about being pursued for first photos is to take out your child when you are good and ready, after a few weeks or a few days in the case of Cate Blanchett. Just take your baby and go do what you want out and about town. Selling pictures is not a way to stop invasion of privacy.

Celebs who do this in the name of charity are making it difficult for others having babies down the line because who wants to refuse doing something in the name of “charity”? It is an easy con that they are falling for.

- sleekraven on May 20th, 2008

For the parents whose children will bring in mega bucks; if they want to be paid the money made off their child’s first pics vs paps, no matter how tacky it may seem, they have the right to do so.

If I were in their shoes, I personally would do a set photo shoot and donate the money to charity because I’ll be damned if I go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery, sleepless nights, am feedings, taking care of my child etc… only to have no say so over where and how the million(s) made off the child I bore goes. I’d rather it go to a good cause charity that I know others will benefit off of vs someone waiting in my bushes. (Even though that is their job and they may have a family to feed)

ITA with Renee, I love seeing photos of the Jolie-Pitts, the Cruises, the Afflecks, the Wilkerson’s etc… but someone is getting paid for those photos that I enjoy, especially for the rare A-List celeb children.

- Melanie F. on May 20th, 2008

Hmmm, i agree with Renee.

People buy the magazines introducing the babies and look at the images on sites such as this one, so isn’t it hypocritical to then say they shouldn’t be selling pictures to a magazine?
I guess all the people on hear expressing disapproval won’t be viewing the images when they appear on this site in a few months. After all, if you do, you will be- intentionally or not- supporting the business of selling celeb baby photographs for money. Practise what you preach and all.

Personally i do wonder about the money but at the end of the day, as i have every intention of viewing the photographs, i can hardly critisize. If i really felt strongly that celebs should not sell their baby’s first photographs, i would not view them on principal.

- Bb on May 20th, 2008

I would hope that Matthew and his “baby mama” will do the right thing and give the money to a charity that needs it.
He certainly does not need the money.

- Michele on May 20th, 2008

I think it is totally acceptable for him to sell the baby pictures for as much money as a magazine is willing to pay. I never really saw it as a celebrity exploiting their child but showing off their child who they adore and thinks is beautiful. They usually do a great photoshoot and anyone would want to have those kind of pictures for their family album if they could. Getting paid for the pictures is frosting on the cake.
How can someone criticize a celebrity if they give the money to a charity? A million dollars to any charity is huge! Think of how many people they are helping. If they don’t give the money to charity that is their business. Just because people have a lot of money does not mean that have to give it away – although it is very generous when they do.
I also don’t think it is a tacky “trend” for companies to give celebrities a ton of free stuff. They are doing it in the hopes that it will give the company some publicity and increase their revenues. Why would some baby company give me free clothes? Who would see them? Why would we expect a business to act like a charity?

- nicole on May 20th, 2008

I completly think this is wrong,.. they are selling their unborn babies pictures ..i think its discusting… they are seeing this as a way to cash in and thats wrong.. this is a child one made from love and SOME of these celebs … it just seems like they see dollar signs.

- Crystal on May 20th, 2008

whenever a celeb pic is published, someone (usually a paparazzi) got paid for it. Obviously the higher the celeb, the higher the paycheck. So why not let the celeb parent pocket the money whether they need it or not. It would obviously look better for them to donate the money in the publics eye but it would still be their choice. It bothers me more to think that some random stranger who lucked out with his camera could get a million dollar paycheck for some other persons childs photo. Would you feel comfortable knowing that some stranger was making money off of selling your childrens photos? That’s kind of creepy but that’s how it works. If you knew that the photos were going to get out regardless and there was nothing you could do about it, why not profit from it as opposed to someone else profiting from it? If the demand is that high, why shouldn’t the parents get the money themselves for pics of their own children?

- angelbaby33 on May 20th, 2008

I dont mean to be rude, but I doubt the baby photos of Matthew and Camila would fetch a very high price. Anyway, this practice is getting ridiculous

- jo.ann on May 20th, 2008

Oh, sorry, just read that they’ve been offerred more than $1 million already. Would not expect this price, as it’s essentially just paying for one actor parent (Camila’s frankly a nobody before this)

- jo.ann on May 20th, 2008

As someone who works for famous people, I know first hand that what you read or see is not always so. I try not to judge and I am aware that these people have to go through the human experience like the rest of us. They are not exempt from pain, grief and sadness. All we see is what we want to see.

I personally like this site because I have a little one and I love the reviews on products.
Also I like that the comments are kind even if we don’t agree.

- ssrea on May 20th, 2008

I can understand celebrities’ rationale that they want to control how and when their child’s first pictures get out and who financially benefits from it. But I also think the only way to keep the whole business of selling baby pictures to the highest bidder appropriate is to donate the money to the charity of the celeb’s choice. Quite frankly, if it meant spending money on buying a magazine or a monthly charge to access this site, I would never bother! And I have a feeling that aside from Shiloh’s first cover that these baby introduction don’t significantly boost magazine sales–in fact, with Christina Aguilera & Max on the cover the sales were actually down for that week!

- Erica on May 20th, 2008

My honest opinion is that charity is only an excuse to promote to the world how much your baby’s popularity is worth. Because after all, they’re actually telling you how much your own popularity is worth. They give it to charity so we “understand” their reasons. But no, it doesn’t work with me.

Paparazzi will be after them either way. So that’s not an excuse either. It’s ridiculous how much these celebrities are selling their kids’ first pictures like solid gold.

And it’s not necessary. Yes, i’m curious to see them, but we’ll see them eventually anyways. How come Kate Blanchet, Naomi Watts and other celebs haven’t done it?

- Bugs on May 20th, 2008

Am I missing something? I dont know how people can turn this into a negative- UNLESS they dont donate the money to a charity organistaion and keep it all to themselves!

They will get hounded for the first pic (anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand!). Why not sell it to a big company for 1 million, then donate to a needy cause?

Im pretty sure every single one of you would buy that magazine, if it had the first pictures and an inside scoop!!

- iluvallbabies on May 20th, 2008

the email address for the site wouldn’t work so that why im posting this here.
source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

Former WWE Diva Kristal Marshall, 24, is due to give birth soon. She is expecting a child with boyfriend and Former WWE superstar Bobby Lashley in the near future. That’s one of the reasons Lashley isn’t making any long-term commitments at the moment because it would put him on the road.

- Katie on May 20th, 2008

I agree with making money and donating them to the charity, but to cash on the baby and keep it to make yourself even richer is distastful. I for one am I not interested in seeing their baby so much to buy any magazine because of that.

I am, though, surprised, that this (so far) rumour has been posted, but the “rumour” about angelina’s twins weren’t even though all other magazines were openly writing about them.

- Nikka on May 20th, 2008

Bugs, while I agree with you, I don’t think that Angelina is doing that to show her baby (babies) popularity. She, for one, is really only doing it to raise money so she can donate it for good causes.

- Nikka on May 20th, 2008

Every single one of us will buy the magazine for a first look?

Nah, I’m really not interested in buying a magazine just to get the first look at a celeb’s baby or get the inside scoop.

I like celeb gossip as much as the next person, but I don’t wait in unbearable expectation for magazine and news articles to come out with first look photos.

- Jen on May 20th, 2008

I didnt say you would wait it “unbearable expectation”- anyone who did that might have a slight problem!! LOL.

But Im guessing most (ok not ALL) readers to this site would want to purchase that mag. We come here because we like to read about celebs and their babies, and get reviews on products occasionally- it would only make sense we would be interested in seeing there baby! And we all care enough to make a comment on this site- what’s the difference with grabbing a $3 magazine when your in a line for the checkout?

Anyway, it comes down to it being their baby, their business I guess!

- iluvallbabies on May 20th, 2008

This is a very interesting trend with a-list celebrities. I wonder what will be next.

- carla at somethingaboutbaby.com on May 20th, 2008

I understand that you didn’t mean me personally or I guess others for that matter, no problem. I was just saying that as some people really DO wait like that for baby celeb photos (which is kind of creepy to be honest.)

The difference is the gossip online in most places is free. I’m not gonna spend money on photos in mags that I can see for free thanks to people who read the mags or the mags themselves to post the photos for me. It’s just gossip, I don’t want to spend my money on rumors. I’m cheap when it comes to magazines I guess..lol!

- Jen on May 20th, 2008

My opinion about the whole issue is that I am against celebrity parents selling their pictures to the highest bidder even for charity. I do not know why anyone would give a celebrity a “pat on the back” for giving the money to charity. It is one thing to give your money, but it is quite another thing to get money for selling your pictures then claim you are being charitable. These celebrities are rich, if they want to give money to charity they do not need to wait for People or OK Magazine to give them money.

Furthermore what does it say about a celebrity who gives money to charity only after having receiving money from another source. I would not call that sacrificial. I have never bought a magazine because someone’s baby was on it and never will. If CBB starting charging people I would move on to another website.
I agree with the earlier posters. The rationale for selling your pictures makes no sense. Celebrities will get hounded even if they sell the first pictures. I just saw a photo yeseterday of Brad/Angelina/Shiloh outside of store. They were mobbed. Shiloh is almost two years old. If anything, interest sometimes increases over time. Furthermore I think the whole idea of “the paps are going to make money off my baby so I might as well get the money first” is extremely crass. Celebrities whine about privacy but yet sell the pictures to the highest bidder. I have so much respect for Beyonce/Jay Z and Halle Berry who have decided not to sell the wedding and baby pictures, respectively.

- Di on May 20th, 2008

Jen you just made me laugh- totally understand. I guess the internet is free and easy.

Ok, maybe I was being too general in my comment!!!

- iluvallbabies on May 20th, 2008

Di, I get what you are saying regarding the baby pictures, but honestly, if I were a celebrity I would resent the fact that some invasive papparrazzo would become hundreds of thousands of dollars richer by invading my family’s privacy for “the big snap”. While they really don’t have a reason to whine about the public interest generated over themselves (because fame IS usually a choice, IMO) I understand why they would prefer the money which will inevitably be made by their baby’s first picture to benefit a cause which literally needs the money (like UNICEF) rather than some private cameraman who most likely overstepped some serious boundaries.

- Erica on May 20th, 2008

Nikka, it’s all very well that Angelina donates the proceeds to charity, but she has, and CAN, donate her own money to charity without selling baby photos. Same goes for other celebrities. Why don’t they just donate a portion of their paychecks instead? Why ruin your image as an actor to be a celebrity? The movie elite are the ones that we want to see, like Brad and Angelina, and because of that, they have enough money from work. I do agree that it’s tacky to sell pictures of your children.

- Ans on May 21st, 2008

It seems a little distasteful, but I guess to me it’s not that different than the celebs who sell their wedding pictures to mags. I find it amazing that magazines would want to pay that huge price tag though.

- Kori Ellis on May 21st, 2008

how sad that they want to sell there baby picture’s. they should just be glad that they will have healthy baby. both of you get a life.

- jane on May 21st, 2008

Oh dear, I read that as “Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves hoping to sell baby” lol THAT got my attention!

But I doubt I will be waiting expectantly to see these photos.

- Briar on May 21st, 2008

I have so much more respect for celebrities like Merryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Sissy Spacek, Dustin Hoffman, Denzel Washington and so many more who did so much more to protect their children from the press while they were growing up. I don’t recall seeing baby pictures of any of their children in magazines, especially within the first months of their arrivals.

And no disrespect to Matthew and Camila who may or may not be selling pictures. This post is just a rumor and if it is true then it’s just following a trend of this generation of celebs. I think it is pretty difficult to stand up to the current. Only very few celebrities are able to do this. I mean celebrities who are in top demand. I don’t know where they fit in on that chart but I am sure since the baby is coming from a mixed heritage, people want to know what it will look like. Just like people are waiting to see Halle’s baby.

What I am really curious about is why do the celeb magazines and even this site have to post a rumor about ‘selling’ potential baby pics in the first place ?

No one talks about Gwyneth Paltrow, Marcia Cross and many many other celebs who do it, just the ‘controversial’ one’s like Jennifer Lopez, Angelina Jolie and by controversial I mean the ones that we all love to debate about.

Was there nothing more interesting to write about Matthew’s and Camila’s impending birth than the ‘rumor’ that they may be speaking about how to sell the first pics ?

Why is that interesting for us to know and discuss on this site ? How is that baby news ? It sounds more like business news to me.

Just an opinion to stimulate some thought. I hope this sits well within the cordial nature of discussion and won’t offend anyone and if it does then I apologize now but those are my thoughts.

- yaosa on May 21st, 2008

This is absolutely ridiculous. There are millions of children that go to bed hungry every single night, they are sometimes without a roof over their head, and there are children with no chance for decent healthcare, and these celebrities are being paid so much money for pictures of their babies. Yeah, it’s great if they donate the money to charities, but it’s doesn’t justify the situation. It’s the same with sports’ players. They make so much money just to play a game while the teachers that spend 8 hours a day with our children are underpaid…they are teaching and taking care of the future generation. It just shows how society is just screwed up.

- asia's mom on May 21st, 2008

I think it’s tacky as hell…period.

And it is only more glaringly tasteless and common after seing how gracefully Cate Blanchett, Naomi Watts, Jennifer Garner, Keri Russell and countless other higher caliber celebrities have handled the situation with their children in the past year.

It really does come down to you are treating your child as a COMMODITY. Be it under the unbrella of “charity” or not.

- Delilah on May 21st, 2008

I’m trying to figure out the comments, so I may be wrong with my interpretation. Let’s see it’s tacky as hell for A-list celebs to profit from their babies first photos to magazines but it’s okay for paps to do so, and make money off all list celebs children while they are at the park, airport, farmers market, on vacation etc… and sell them to sites such as this one, JJ, x17-online etc… and we posters who view the photos and post comments aren’t tacky because we didn’t pay to see the photos or take them, we are only viewing and/or commenting on photos that a pap made money off of vs the parent???

Wow you learn something new everyday. I’m glad to know I’m not a hypocrite by coming here everyday and viewing and commenting on some photos of celeb children that some pap made money off of and then calling the parents of celeb children tacky for doing the exact same thing (selling their photos to tabloids/sites for a profit). Then again it’s JMHO, to each their own!!!

- Melanie F. on May 21st, 2008

You’re right Melanie F. Thanks for saying that

- Renee on May 21st, 2008

Comparing paps selling photos to parents selling photos is kind of ridiculous, imo. Paps do this for a living while the parents are doing it for publicity. So, yes, I think selling your baby photos is kind of tacky–especially when you already make millions at your ‘day’ job, LOL!

- Tara on May 21st, 2008

how sad it this couple. they should just be thankful that they have a healthy baby not worry about how much they can make from him/her…… GET A LIFE

- jane on May 21st, 2008

I totally agree with Melanie F said.

As for this comment “I have so much more respect for celebrities like Merryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Sissy Spacek, Dustin Hoffman, Denzel Washington” The only reason why these celebs didn’t sell their baby pictures is because these celebs are older. During the time when they had kids it wasn’t popular to take celeb baby pictures. Taking celeb baby pictures only something recent. Back in the 90′s the paps were not as big as they are today.

- Kathryn on May 21st, 2008

I also agree with Melanie F. Why are people belittling giving huge amounts of money to charity? If you care about the hungry children in the world how can you not support someone giving that much money to charities that could help? Also, Angelina gives tons of her own money to charities each year. The amount of money she could raise with the babies’ pictures to give to a charity would be huge and if she could make such a big difference in so many peoples lives by sharing some of her life then why wouldn’t she? I’m just not getting this criticism.

- nicole on May 21st, 2008

Tara
I see your point be we can twist and justify any situation to make the reasonings different but the bottom line will still be the same, paps are selling photos and making a profit, parents are selling photos and making a profit. Who has more money, does what for a living, or for what reasons should be neither here nor there if the bottom line is the same = Paps and parents are both making profits off selling photos of celeb children. So if someone finds the actions of parents selling their children’s photos for profit tacky, then they should also find the actions of the paps taking and selling the photos for profit and even people viewing and enjoying profit made photos of celeb children tacky. Well that’s just my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs even if they differ and I respect that. Either way I’m done with this post. =)

- Melanie F. on May 21st, 2008

There are children starving in Africa, aid needed in Myanmar and China… 1 Million for celeb baby photos that will only be thrown out in rubbish bins a week later?! Ugh.

- lolasmum on May 21st, 2008

WOT A SAD COUPLE, WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD SELL PICS OF THERE BABY EVEN FOR$1 MILLION.DO THEY ONLY WANT A BABY TO SEE HOW MUCH MONEY THEN CAN GET. LETS HOPE THERE BABY IS HEALTHY AND HAPPY WITH ALL THAT MONEY…………… TO THIS COUPLE GET A LIFE

- jane on May 21st, 2008

first, i think they have received offers. but this all thing about money is just a rumor. so i dont understand all this discussion and judging them.
second many of you ask “who would like to see baby of Matthew and Camila?” the answer is-me!!! i didnt care about Christina Aguilera’s baby or Nicole’s or i am not excited of seeing Kidman newborn baby in few months. but yes. i wish i could see Matthew and Camila’s little one.
selling photos is reality now. i think the subject what should disgust us is for example one of singer who gave birth in the front of MTV camera!

- Olivia on May 21st, 2008

Di and Ans, don’t forget, that all the celeb’s (including Angelina) do come from a third source (movie makers, movie goers, companies she promotes etc) So selling pics to make more money for charities, I don’t see much wrong with that. Plus ltos of celebs (incl Angelina) do donate lots of their “own” money already.
And I read somewhere, that by selling teh pics, they prevent the paps by hunting the first pic till someone gets hurt or killed. By releasing them themselves, they take away that first picture opportunity for paps, as they will never get those first pics after they were released anymore

- Nikka on May 21st, 2008

Opps, forgot to write “money”

that all the celeb’s MONEY (including Angelina) do come from a third source (movie makers, movie goers, companies she promotes etc)

- Nikka on May 21st, 2008

It’s getting to the point where the market is becoming oversaturated, with celebs at every level of stardom thinking that everybody wants to see their kid on the cover of People mag. I admire someone like Halle Berry, who has held out this long.

- Sam on May 21st, 2008

And Nicole Richie put her daughter on 2 magazine covers in the space of 3 months…

- jo.ann on May 21st, 2008

CBB, you have to stop being so protective of Nicole Richie here. People can slag Camila Alves, but I cannot mention a single, albeit slightly unpleasant fact about Richie?

- jo.ann on May 22nd, 2008

Hi friend!
I liked your site!
Good work!

- Maris on May 26th, 2008

This is insane! I know a few couples who had to have abortions earlier in their lives (and waay better genetically blessed than “baby mama” and Matthew McConaughey ) due to financial and other reasons in the past. I met a lot of couples who can no longer conceive a child and had to adopt a child. But having such young unknown “celebrities” who have not done anything significant for society having their children’s pictures posted all over the place, would not anyhow inspire any positive reaction within the society.

- egrh on June 21st, 2008