Putting famous celebrity babies on tabloid covers

[blissfullyunaware]

I personally don't like the idea of seeing celebrity babies on covers. I think it would be scary for the parents having to worry about kidnapping plots, etc.

[ekee]

Ewan McGregor does a good job too.
To this day I dunno what his kids look like. He stated in many interviews that he is very protective of them.

<3 Ewan

[western]

I think it should be against the law to take, sell, distribute and publish any paparazzi photo of anyone under the age of 18 without express permission from their parents. That includes celebs like Dakota Fanning.

It's one thing to publish a photo shoot or photos taken at a clear public event (such as a premiere). It's another to follow these kids around and take photos of their daily life. I don't care if the paps are following mom & dad and the kids just "happen" to be with them. It's a clear violation of privacy even with the excuse that they're famous by association.

[Raspberry gashes]

I've never really thought about this before but i was at the supermarket today and the magazine cover had a big photo of Suri Cruise with 'Suri's Christmas' as the headline, and in the corner of the page, a photo of Shiloh Jolie Pitt under the headline 'The Black Sheep of the Family' and I was disgusted. I don't think its appropriate at all.

[bychance]

The new cover of OK magazine with both of Britney's sons in although a photograph posed picture, with the headline BRITNEY'S KIDS ON DRUGS? was disturbing to me.

Originally Posted by Raspberry gashes

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

I didn't even know he had kids

Originally Posted by western

I think it should be against the law to take, sell, distribute and publish any paparazzi photo of anyone under the age of 18 without express permission from their parents. That includes celebs like Dakota Fanning.

It's one thing to publish a photo shoot or photos taken at a clear public event (such as a premiere). It's another to follow these kids around and take photos of their daily life. I don't care if the paps are following mom & dad and the kids just "happen" to be with them. It's a clear violation of privacy even with the excuse that they're famous by association.

Exactly.

[sputnik]

the only way that will change is through laws. i know some european countries don't allow tabloids to print pics of celebs' or politicians' kids unless they have the parents' consent, so they just digitally smudge the kids' faces. but even then, with the internet, anyone can have access to the unaltered photos so it doesn't change anything.

[Raspberry gashes]

Showing their face is one thing, but now they're using their face and their names as headlines, and writing stories about them. I just don't think THAT is right at all.

[sparkly]

^ITA. The kids didn't ask to be famous. These mags are making money off of babies. However, A TON of celebs are making millions by selling pics of their babies. I understand that getting the first pic is important and it allows the celeb to retain control, but maybe some of these parents are looking to cash in. The majority of celebs don't show their kids in public.

[HWBL]

I just found this article when the tabloids and
paparazzi were on a "baby hunt" for the first
baby picture of Warren Beatty's firstborn, Kathlyn.
I guess it was so unexpected that he would ever
start a family, that it was big news for a while.

[bychance]

That is seriously disturbing, what they do.