Putting famous celebrity babies on tabloid covers

RandomlyCrazy · May 30th, 2007, 01:34 PM

Do you think it's okay to use pictures of celebrity babies on tabliod covers to sell magazines or do you think maybe magazines or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be allowed to print the children's pics unless the celeb/parent gives consent or it's a spread they posed for, like Tom and Katie with Suri for VF ???

Bellatheball · May 30th, 2007, 01:39 PM

Though I love seeing photos of any baby, I think this crosses a line. There are too many crazies out there and I personally wouldn't want my kid's name and photo on a national magazine cover. I suppose we need to remember some of the stars are first in line for a paycheck off of these photos though.

RandomlyCrazy · May 30th, 2007, 01:54 PM

IIRC, Tom and Katie didn't get paid money for the Suri pics in Vanity Fair and celebs like Sheryl Crowe and Brangelina donated the money they got.

HWBL · May 30th, 2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatheball

Though I love seeing photos of any baby, I think this crosses a line. There are too many crazies out there and I personally wouldn't want my kid's name and photo on a national magazine cover. I suppose we need to remember some of the stars are first in line for a paycheck off of these photos though.

I see your point, yet, on the other hand: it's probably safest to have pictures of them published while they're babies as they'll still change a lot and won't look the same for very long. Once their "look" is more or less set, I would think there's a much bigger risk for the kids as far as kidnapping etc. is concerned.

KrisNine · May 30th, 2007, 03:14 PM

At this point, there really is no privacy and no hiding the baby. The paps will stake them out and get a pic one way or another. As long as the parents live in a bubble, unfortunately so will their children.

That Shiloh is a cute baby!

january · May 30th, 2007, 07:38 PM

I don't know if thats entirely true. Theres plenty of A-listers who I have no clue what their children look like. Johnny Depp does a fabulous job of shielding his kids from the public eye. This pimping out of your kids is really worrisome to me. Kids are not meant to be a photo opportunity. Man, some of these celeb kids, if a stalker wanted to hurt them, he would know exactly what they looked like, and where they are at the moment. I don't know why it doesn't scare the daylights out of these celebs when it scares me for their own children - is it done out of ignorance or do they want the attention so much they just don't care? Its truly baffling.

RandomlyCrazy · May 30th, 2007, 11:54 PM

But Johnny and Vanessa did an obvious "arranged" pap shoot in London of Lily-Rose and Jack at the bridge, so while I think they do this less...they have done it too.

Raspberry gashes · May 31st, 2007, 12:10 AM

I've never seen johnny depps kids. Where are the pictures?

SunShine23 · May 31st, 2007, 12:58 AM

well if angelina and brad didnt sell pics of the kids theyd be hounded 24/7 by the paps and then some pap would get a million bucks. this way, they put out the pics themselves, get money for "charity" although i do think they pocket most of it, and hence there is little to no value for the pics and the paps dont chase them

Honey · May 31st, 2007, 01:30 AM

Some people hide their kids really well, like Britney, oh wait she doesn't even look after hers.

Bellatheball · May 31st, 2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunShine23

well if angelina and brad didnt sell pics of the kids theyd be hounded 24/7 by the paps and then some pap would get a million bucks. this way, they put out the pics themselves, get money for "charity" although i do think they pocket most of it, and hence there is little to no value for the pics and the paps dont chase them

It doesn't appear to have stopped the paps in this particular case.

SunShine23 · May 31st, 2007, 06:40 PM

you're right. but still, it avoids the chase for the "first ever exclusive photos" because those will fetch the most money. when the kids are exposed, value goes down anywayz

Voodoo Child · May 31st, 2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatheball

It doesn't appear to have stopped the paps in this particular case.

Exactly right.

waikiki · June 1st, 2007, 04:47 AM

I don't know why they want Miscah to look like she's Lindsay. I think Mischa is just a skinny Hollywood model... sometimes she's also a bit of a loser and I don't feel like she's all this wild chick.

Whatever...

Babies on covers = $$$
$$$ = bigger yatch, house, new clothes, diamonds, travels.

IT ALL COMES FROM THE HEART!!!

darksithbunny · June 1st, 2007, 05:39 AM

I feel bad for the children because they did not choose that life the parents did. With that said, the parents knew that they lived under a microscope so maybe they should do better at keeping the kids out of the public eye. Many, many other celebs can do it, why can't these handfuls? IMO, Johnny Depp was a great example of how it can be done .