12 most expensive celebrity baby pictures

UPDATE: Pictures of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's newborn twins sold for $14 million.

Can we just step back for a moment and marvel at the news of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt having twins and selling the pictures for an estimated $11 million? Before the birth, paparazzi camped out in front of the hospital, and the mayor of Nice announced the twins' arrival along with the couple's doctor.

There is big price escalation for celebrity baby pictures these days. Consider that in 1989 pictures of Lisa Marie Presley's baby - quintessential tabloid fodder - sold for $100,000. Nowadays that barely covers the catering bill at baby's first photo shoot. But really, what is our fascination with celebrity baby pictures?

There's a ludicrous predictability to them all: parents beam as the little blob looks uncomprehendingly up at the bright photography lights. "We're a happy, normal family" the pictures attempt to project, but the perfectly styled mums and dads end up looking as posed and artificial as the babies look unformed and natural. People in "the business" say the rising prices of baby pictures is fueled by fans wanting to know the "real" person behind the celebrity facade. But these pictures look as plastic as a pacificer. And while ostensibly they are focussed on the baby and the family unit, they seem to be about one thing alone: burnishing the parents' image.

12 celebrity couples and what they sold their baby pictures for:

1. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: Twins Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon, sold for $14 million to Hello! and People magazine (figure updated)
2. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: First child Shiloh Nouvel born in Namibia in 2006, sold for between $5-7 million to People magazine
3. Jennifer Lopez and Marc Antony: Twins Emme and Max born in 2008, sold for $6 million to People
4. Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves: Levi, reportedly sold for $3 million to OK!, according to TMZ.com

5. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: Adopted son Pax Thien, sold for $2 million to People in 2007
6. Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead: Dannielynn, sold for a reported $2 million to OK! magazine
7. Christina Aguilera and Jordan Bratman: Max, sold for a reported $1.5 million to People in February

8. Jessica Alba and Cash Warren: Honor Marie, sold for a reported $1.5 million to OK!
9. Jamie Lynn Spears: Maddie Briann, sold for a reported $1 million by OK! in June
10. Nicole Richie and Joel Madden: Harlow Winter, sold for a reported $1 million to People in February
11. Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale: Kingston, sold for a reported $575,000 to OK! in June 2006
12. Britney Spears and Kevin Federline: Sean Preston, sold for a reported $500,000 to People in November 2005

And three high-profile celebrities who didn't:

* Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, for Sunday Rose, because they said they did not feel that it was right

* Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick, for James Wilke. The actress stood outside the hospital with her baby and posed for free.

* Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, for Suri Cruise. The couple reportedly took the pictures off the market after a bidding war. Pictures taken by Annie Leibovitz ran in Vanity Fair.

Source: Forbes.com, The Times archive and agencies

Comments

[Hilda]

Give credit where it is due. Say what you want about him but don't tell lies about him in a smear campaign. Tom Cruise never sold pictures of Suri and never intended to sell them. He did not bid them either and intended to release a single picture.

Do you know that Suri's pictures have been the second highest Vanity fair sales in history? That they sold more magazines than Shiloh's? Why I believe at the time the pictures were taken, magazines were willing to pay upto 10 million. But Tom Cruise is never like that. To say that magazines were more interested in Kingston Rossdale is absurd. Even now, candid pictures of Suri sell more than any celebrity baby pictures.

Personally I don't believe in selling pictures of your children. You have enough money, ditch the private jets and give money to charity. Why bother helping earth quake or cyclone victims when you are flying to see your wife in hospital in a private helicopter?

[beki]

it doesnt seem right that they want a huge amount of money for a baby photo it just doesnt seem right

[noodlemonkey]

I think that there is a world of difference between Angelina and Brad donating the proceeds to charity and others who make a carreer out of selling thier kids' every experience to OK! and ET! a la Larry Birkhead.

[Ava]

Jade - you are certainly entitled to your opinion, although I must say I think some of your comments stem from the fact that you take the celebrity news as a given - the exact issue I take umbrage with.

Re Tom cruise, I personally think the man is unhinged - so never mentioned him in any of my posts. Re - Brad Pitt - he has not 'helped to rebuild' sustainable housing...are you mad? Do you have any idea how qualified the people are that are doing that? 7 years architecture at uni...people that have backgrounds in structural engineering, landscape architecture, sewage and waste control, electrical engineering and urban planning to name just a few. Do you honestly believe an actor, with no university education or history of planning, architecture, engineering etc etc could help build a house?? If so, then - I don't mean to be rude - but you are seriously uninformed. What he has done (and this is in itself arguable) - is to bring attention to the area, although New Orleans is quite well known enough with or without his 'help' (I'm half british/half north american and divide my time between the two so am well aware of the issues in North America/the US.)

Re: the situation in Namibia, human rights organisations there - including an NGO that works with ant-natal care lobbied against them in the country courts....why? to protest against the security and no-fly zone that was imposed to keep these two actors (which, incidentally, no one in Namibia knew about at the time) 'safe'. Some journalists were jailed, even though they were not in contradiction of any local laws. This is all open information - although not anything that would be printed in Hello, Ok, People, US, CNN news or others of their ilk. The only reason people knew she was there to Begin with, was because she did a CNN news feed and invited that famous female anchor woman to interview her (and this is Namibia, one of the wealthiest African countries, with a healthier GDP and more buoyant economy than some asian and south american counterparts - with no conflict, and good governance in place...so there was no need to do a CNN news feed there. If there was, how about interviewing people that have worked there for many years? In any case, there are many African countries with deep-seated issues regarding conflict, governance, poverty and women's healthcare that would benefit from greater awareness..but Namibia is not one of them.) There are many, Many famous actors - De Niro, Pacino, Kidman, Winslet etc etc etc (ad nauseum) and Non have this level of fame....is it because Ms. Jolie is intrinsically fascinating, above all others? or because she is happy to court attention? I would say, without question, the latter.

Re: her acting. No, I don't think she is an especially good actor. I much prefer people like Kate Winslet. However, I would like to make it clear that I do Not have a natural dislike against the woman - I am sure she is perfectly nice (as she should be, given such a privileged life) and, indeed, I might watch her in a role in the future and think her acting very impressive.

However, the fact that she is an actor, or Brad Pitt is, or Clooney, or Tom Cruise, or Sean Penn - does not in my mind make them particularly clever or impressive individuals. I might think an actor or director is extremely good - but, as has been my point all along, this does not and should not (in our society) equate to 'hero worship' and the fact that they are allowed to voice their opinions in all areas. Of course, free speech is important - and of course, one should be able to voice their opinions (as I am doing right now) but when this becomes the equivalent of me, for example, telling a director how to direct simply because in the past I've watched a movie and find it an interesting process, or Clooney directing foreign policy because he believe he should (he has been quoted as saying this) - then No. I think it needs to stop.

Re: dev issues - they are extremely complex, and not something that can be summarized - not even in the broadsheets (which sometimes print topical issues surrounding the aid/dev field) regardless of how erudite an article may be. So any issues to do with charity, aid, remittances, governance etc..have to be understood in their full and proper context (re an earlier post - when I said that - working and studying it at uni aside - one could start with reading about people like Easterly, or foreign policy review etc. etc etc!)

[Rachel]

"Rachel - I think you're ignoring the alternative route which SJP took when she posed outside the hospital for the photos for free. This was a 'safe' way for the world to see the pictures, quick and fuss free. Those who were interested had a fond look at the little blob, then started thinking about something else!"

I'm sorry, I don't think SJP is in the same position/league as Angeline Jolie & Brad Pitt. Regardless of how they got to be in the position where 'People' magazine are willing to pay that much for a photo, there is more interest in their baby photos than SJP.

[Victoria]

Rachel - I think you're ignoring the alternative route which SJP took when she posed outside the hospital for the photos for free. This was a 'safe' way for the world to see the pictures, quick and fuss free. Those who were interested had a fond look at the little blob, then started thinking about something else!

By demanding such a huge sum of money, the Pitts (in every sense of the word...) have created a news story. Perhaps when they go on about 'charidee', they can consider that news attention on the price of their baby pics deflects attention from stories such as Darfur. Of couse they love the attention, and by doing things like this they just expose themselves more obviously than normal. I find Angelina Jolie's saintly attitude utterly repugnant for reasons many people have outlined. I haven't looked at the photos and i can't think of anyone's child I would like to see less.

[Jade]

Angelina Jolie may not be to everyone's tastes but to me she represents a unique and amazing human being. She is incredibly open and honest about her past, which some people still can't seem to get over. People criticising her acting ability need to acknowledge that she has won an Oscar and numerous other awards and accolades for her body of work. Have you people even watched Girl Interrupted, Gia or A mighty heart?
The money generated from selling the much anticipated pictures of her children are always given to charity. So this is not about self-promotion, but making the best of a crazy situation. If she didn't organise to do a photoshoot the paparazzi would just hound her even more for the first pictures. Indeed they're still camped outside the hospital hoping for a glimpse. I don't think you comprehend how bad it is unless you've seen how many photographers surround the family constantly, evidence of this is on Youtube and Splash (a photo agency I think). Why should she not use this interest in a positive way.
Also I must point out that this is not her only contribution to charity. She has foundations set up in her adopted children's names in their home countries as well as her and Brad donating out of their income to various good causes. Yes giving to charity isn't as simple as just giving the money and hey presto instant results, there are corrupt govenrments and people out there taking a cut. However I would also point out that when she gave birth the first time in Namibia they sold the pictures donated all that money and then made donations directly to hospitals there. They had visited and asked what was needed and so this was a very practical and well thought out gift. In addition to this Brad has helped to rebuild sustainable housing for the people in New Orleans, where the US government has failed to provide adequately for its citizens. They even moved there to bring continued awareness to the situtation there, be closer to the project and bring their children up in a less intense environment than Hollywood.
Selling photos of celebrity babies may not be everyone's choice and those that resist should be applauded. However that doesn't mean those that do are greedy people open to as much bashing as you feel like handing out. Sure not all of them give the proceeds to chairty, but at least they control the environment in which their children are first exposed to the world. Subsequently the madness subsides somewhat.
Oh and it's been widely rumoured that Tom Cruise didn't sell pictures of Suri as a new-born because he demanded a price no one was willing to pay, especially as at that time Shiloh Jolie-Pitt and Kingston Rossdale were born and grabbing all the headlines. So to include him is laughable, more so considering pictures of Suri as a baby were sold consquently to Vanity Fair.

[John]

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have received the best part of $20 million for baby pictures! That is alot of magazine sales just to see some children. There are some really strange people out there. I had to bribe my mother to look at our baby pictures and she still fell asleep.

[Jo]

Hear hear Ava

[Lisa van Gijssel]

I read recently that when Charlotte Church had her daughter she asked visitors not to bring balloons so the paparazzi wouldn't know she'd had her baby and they'd get a few days of peace with her. How sad is that? That parents don't get to enjoy their baby in peace without being pestered?

Selling the pics is a great way to raise money for charity and I suppose also a way to get the paps of your back. What a shallow world we live in. And why am I even reading this and getting sucked into the whole process?

[Ava]

Hi Rachel - yes I'd agree with you on all of that. I think discussions that have sprung up all over in the wake of the Jolie/Pitt hysteria are really interesting in that they illustrate that most people have had enough of celebrity invading all parts of our life.

(Btw - If you haven't read/heard of it - you, and other readers might be interested in that story that made American news some months back. A female newsreader refused to discuss a story about Paris Hilton on the morning news as there was - unsurprisingly - more important news...and although she was bullied by her co-workers she stuck to it and ripped up the story on air....you can see it on Youtube I should think? Anyway - the resulting furore was called 'the shot heard around the world' as it turned out that in the following days after it happened, apx 250,000 people posted comments - from all over the world - saying she did the right thing and they were sick of living in a celebrity-obsessed world).

I think one of the main problems is that the as these stories are printed in broadsheets or on, say major news stations like the BBC, Independent or the Times (not the New York Times though - they have a refreshing and healthy take on celebrity news) - that when, as a viewer/reader people tune in - it would appear that they are also reading/watching the story on celebrity....whereas I would think most people don't care, but have little choice in the matter - as it is on the same news channels/papers that they read for all other news.

This has worried me in the past, but it is especially bothering me now I'm a parent. It upsets me to think what my kids will be presented with on a 24/7 basis (you can already see the difference in the UK between celebrity reporting in 1998 and now) - so I just feel the more people that say 'enough'! the better. (I am sure some people will say, well it's just about some pics...but as is obvious from society nowadays, it clearly goes a lot deeper than that - to what is valued and prioritised above other more meaningful issues.)

Re: Grouchy old Bat - yes, I agree...it is a lot of nonsense...my point precisely. However, my point -is that you do Not have to be a reader of 'People' magazine to know who they are....if that were the case it would be ideal. Ms. Jolie, Clooney etc (along with Bono and Geldof and even Madonna?) have, armed with a little knowledge, less expertise and almost no objective tertiary education on the matter now waded into foreign policy and development. Indeed, my original issues with Ms. jolie et. al stem from this. (As someone who works in dev/aid with family members and colleagues currently in Darfur and Afghanistan to name just two current hot spots it is far from 'nonsense'. My issues with celebrity over-riding [and over-simplifying complex issues in these areas - which undermines the true situation] what should be, the preserve of those who work, understand and are fully committed to bringing about positive change (where possible) in these areas - is not 'imaginary'.)

[grouchy old bat]

Ye Gods what nonsense!
Not being a reader of "people" magazines, I've never heard of some of these so-called "famous" parents, and what's more there ought to be a law against people saddling their offspring with such ridiculous forenames!!

I didn't know such trivial subjects got debated at all.

If obscene amounts of money are circulating for baby pics, then it's obviously a case of supply and demand.
You all keep on demanding and they'll all keep right on supplying.

But take no notice of me, I'm just some grouchy old bat who stumbled over this subject whilst browsing The Times Online! ;D

[Rachel]

Thanks Ava.

I think we are essentially arguing 2 different points: I agree with you that AJ & BP's is not headline news and share your concerns regarding the surplus of celebrity news. What I am saying is that if you look beyond that (and without arguing whether the fact that they are world news is right or wrong) I think that some measure of controlled and safeguarded release of photos is not a bad thing. I also don't think that "they use the excuse of putting photos of their children in the public domain ... under the guise of giving the proceeds to charity". I think that they are being offered a fee, which they will/might choose to give to charity.

[Jo]

Rachel - I agree with you regarding the fact that as people want the pictures and will get them it is better to control the release.
AVA - I agree that celebrities get far too much air time, especially as I don't think she is a particularly good actress. I also agree with you that throwing money at problems in deleoping countries is somethimes not that helpful.

[Anna, Belarus]

well, I'm not curious for those pictures. The whole thing sounds silly to me. But if there're people willing to pay, I think it's normal. It's not like "selling their babies" or something. It's just economics - supply-and-demand.

[Bon Travels]

I don't want to see any pictures of anybody's brats. They all look the same and make the same noises and smells. 11,000,000: they must be a lot of sad people out there getting pleasure from drooling over a few photographs and discussing whether it looks like the maternal or paternal side.

They all remind me of E.T., unfortunately without the advantage that they disappear of to another universe.

[Ava]

Rachel - I offer my sincere apologies if I came across as patronising. That certainly wasn't my intent. Re your point, yes I can see where you are coming from, but I still strongly believe that as we live in a world where celebrity 'currency' or 'capital' is so all-encompassing - to the point that, I strongly feel, we are almost 'held hostage' to the media representations of the lifestyles of the privileged and famous (and often undeservingly so - compared to say a heart surgeon) there comes a point when we have to say 'enough'. There is an surplus of celebrity news in every domain - and I feel it undermines real issues and makes us all the lesser for it.

Re - charity and what they can afford. Clearly they are not (I shouldn't think!) using the photos to generate income. My point is that as they are so overpaid they can afford to give to charity regardless of baby photos or not. That they use the excuse of putting photos of their children in the public domain (and I believe without there being much of a choice from the average person who is forced to witness media/broadsheets reporting it as if two messiah's were just born) under the guise of giving the proceeds to charity is something I find fundamentally wrong. But clearly that is my opinion, not yours - so we can agree to disagree.

I also agree that the interests of the children (one would assume) rest with the parents. But again - what I take issue with - is the simple fact that, as is the current case, if I am to go to a newsagents, or switch on my TV and watch the news, or read online news, than I feel I should be able to do so without an actor giving birth to twins being classed as 'world news'. As it has been (pushing even the current ICC/Sudan issue to the background) then I think a debate on the issue about what and where the socio-cultural (if not moral) boundaries in society should be - is long overdue.

[David Vinter]

My two children are now grown up, but I can easily sort out many pictures taken when they were small.It is all utter nonsense, parents are delighted to have bright happy children. When first born they almost all look wrinkly, such pictures are worth about the cost of taking them!

[Rachel]

I take your point Ava but I don't think you need to be quite so patronising. I wasn't commenting on the complex issues of aid/charity rather that it was up to them whether they donated the proceeds of a photo, from their own pockets or not at all. I don't necessarily even think that they are using this photo(s) as a way to generate income, whether or not they do or don't need to. That is a different argument.

As for what is in the child(ren)s best interests I think to a large extent that is up to the parents. I don't think we can really comment on their choices unless we know them personally as we only have what they and/or the media choose to sell us.

My point was simply thus: if one is in the public domain (with or without input or courting it) then an effective way to *safeguard* little ones can be to keep complete control over the initial photo rights. (by safeguard I do not mean anything more than the immediate safety of the children in question whilst people attempt to take photos by whatever means possible or available)

[Ava]

Re: Rachel. I disagree. I think we have every right to judge, given that they play out their lives in public domain. It is naive to think they do not court this attention - what about (popular) seminal directors such as Steven Spielberg or George Lucas? Actors such as Matt Damon or Jennifer Garner. Certainly all very good at their jobs, and unarguably, not nearly as famous as Angelina Jolie. Then again I do not see them parading their children at every opportunity nor do they say whatever they please in a bid to court controversy. Ms Jolie will talk about her sexual desires, past conquests, her familial issues, wearing blood vials, having knives in bed, where her children are from - with impunity, if not outright glee (this is all information which, believe me, I wish my brain had not been forced to take on board – but with the ‘celebrity’ culture as is, one cannot go on any newspaper or news channel these days without it being rammed down your throat - and I know this information even though I actively avoid news with her in it! The only reason I am responding to this thread is it allows a proper discussion and I feel the more people that talk some sense the better for those just forming their opinions). In any case, voicing her uncensored thoughts is certainly her prerogative - but one cannot do that and then wonder why the media/press want more stories of the same. Regarding giving the money to charity, as others have commented (as have I) the issue of aid/charity is extremely complex and, sadly, it does not equate that the more money given the more a developing area or peoples will benefit. I urge you to familiarise yourself with this extremely interesting, complex, and important global discussion (see foreign policy review, foreign affairs mag and easterly to get a starting idea on the basic issues). Indeed, as others have rightly pointed out, she does not need to use photos of her children to generate money - she and her partner, B Pitt are paid far, Far more than enough to - as is clear - afford private planes, French chateaux's, nannies, chefs, holidays worldwide, and to speed up overseas adoptions to name just a few privileges. The best interests of the children (again as can be seen from the often troubles adult lives of famous offspring who are forced to play out their lives in the public domain) is to allow them the space and anonymity to develop in their own way and on their own terms (e.g. like the McCartney’s and countless others have done. If a 'Beatle' could do it at the height of the Beatles fame in the 60-70s - then Jolie/Pitt most certainly can. It comes down to the choices you make and what you prioritise). She has denied her children this - often, as the current situation illustrates, under the guise of 'charity' and as a development academic/practitioner I find this most disturbing of all.

[Rachel]

Surely it is better for BP & AJ to have complete control over the photos and their original publication than it is to allow either a free-for-all or potentially putting their children in danger of cameramen desperate to take the 'first exclusive' photo.

They are being realistic: people want to see photos of them and their baby. I'm not saying that this is 'right' merely that a controlled photo release deals more effectively and safely with the issue. The fact that a charity benefits is surely a good thing, regardless of whether they could afford to make donations of their own. (How do we know what they do or don't do with their own money, and surely it is not up to us to judge anyway?)

[Iske Edwards]

Why is this surprise? Celebrities don't value anonymity.

[H. E. Bridge]

It's actually quite shallow for celebs to justify wanting enormous amounts of cash for their newborns by claiming they would donate it to charity - what are they? Short on cash? In the lowest income bracket? -That they cannot donate otherwise? No charity needs that sort of money.

[mumoftwo]

Yes, I am sympathetic to their reasons for having these photos taken formally, as otherwise the hunt is on for the 'first' picture with paps chasing them (and their other children) constantly and sometimes dangerously. For them, it's a way of containing the situation.

[Jo]

If people didn't buy the magazines then they wouldn't exist that is the sad thing.I supposre if you know you will be hounded to give pics the best thing to do would be to choose one paper/magazine and sell them and then give the moeny to charity. However I hope they really think about what charity they give it too as I really believe that foreign, western aid can be very damaging and disempowering. I kind of Neo-colonialism. I am glad they haven't said which one.

[Rosita]

This is another case of American culture supremacy, the empire is going to the pitts anyway( helped but a total lack of culture because the cultural legacy of the Americans to the world is will smith and angelina jolie, so in other words a religious fanatic and bad actor and an ex-cocaine snorter), in centuries to come it will be remembered as an empire who flourished for one century but which soon disappeared. You Brits and your empire have lasted longer at least. Now these two bad actors no one would know if they were born in Turkey but because they are annoyingly american we all know about them and their ridiculous ignorance and they must think the whole world is as stupid as their Hollywood peers to believe they actually do something good by showing us their babies and selling their photos. Poor kids. All in the name of charity, amen.

[Malinche]

Please enough of this two. The money given to charity is many times in the interest of the charity (they paid themselves good salaries, the advertising agencies that produce their adds are also very pricey) but hardly in the interest of the people they claim to help. I would like to see what that charity makes with the £11 because it's enough money to create schools and provide for many children in countries like Peru or Bolivia. These days Charity is the excuse the rich and famous have to excuse themselves for overspending. I used to work in Harvey Nichols where I saw people like Jemima Khan spending thousands and thousands of pounds in clothes that didn't even fit her , clothes that she bought like the rest of us toilet paper and then i see this people pretending to care by attending some flashy dinner where they donate money and really makes me sad how stupid the west has become giving Divine status to two ignorant americans. Sad .

[mamin]

Who these two believe they are? the Mesiah. Honestly, she is a very bad actress who used to take cocaine and has done absolutely nothing with her life apart from saying she wants to save the world. Typical of actors with no education and Hollywood deluded people. He, is another actor, who made a good film a while ago and who also likes to save the world from a yatch and a party in Cannes. These people are painfully arrogant and annoying.

[Ava]

Yet another article on the Jolie-Pitts. It is utterly depressing that we live in a world where celebrity now over-rides everything. It's got to the point that all UK broadsheets (and of course, the Independent even had it as front page news??) print it as newsworthy, as does MSN, hotmail - so at no point can you choose Not to engage...whereas, the New York Times refuses to dumb down and has NOT printed anything about it over the past few days. The last international paper with any journalistic integrity I am starting to think. Re: giving the money to charity - considering the absurd amount of money they make for being actors (not even directing or specialist crew) they could easily give more money to charity (indeed, there are also the complexities of aid..certainly it is not clear that aid money given to NGO's is always in the best interests of those in developing areas). In any case, the money someone gives should be a reflection of their relative wealth/ability to do so..many people, with regular jobs, struggling financially may give less in absolute terms, but more in relative terms. As someone (academic and practitioner) who works in the field of international development/poverty and aid work I find it ridiculous the amount of accolades she is awarded for essentially standing on the shoulders of those who have spent years committing to these issues (academically and in terms of overseas experience) and who produce the research/outputs and real aid work of which she associates herself with. It is so upsetting that in a world of 6 billion people we have given away a chance to be truly meritocratic and rejoiced for our individual successes, as well as rejoicing others for theirs...and instead have given it All - without, it seems, any reflection on the impact this will have on our children and what they will learn to value and prioritise - to the alter of celebrity. False, shallow and ultimately meaningless. I enjoy movies and can certainly appreciate a good actor, but the extent to which this has evolved in modern day society is beyond absurd. If I am to 'hero worship' anyone it will be pediatricians, cardiac surgeons, structural engineers which help build bridges and buildings, biologists, zoologists, molecular biologists, great novelists, painters,.....the list goes on. People who change the world we live in...and not two individuals living in a world of ultimate privilege and wealth.

[Andy B]

errr $0

[Lazy Mummy]

That's true, Gipsy. I just get depressed at the utter commercalisation & all-pervasive celebrity culture of the world we live in and am inclined to hate the idea of celebs selling pix for oodles of $ even if they are giving it away, as it just feeds this prevailing obsession with celebrities. Though I suppose the world was ever thus - albeit with people worshipping royalty rather than modern celebrity a couple of centuries ago.

[Lazy Mummy]

That's true, Gipsy. I just get depressed at the utter commercalisation & all-pervasive celebrity culture of the world we live in and am inclined to hate the idea of celebs selling pix for oodles of $ even if they are giving it away, as it just feeds this prevailing obsession with celebrities. Though I suppose the world was ever thus - albeit with people worshipping royalty rather than modern celebrity a couple of centuries ago.

[John]

If they can raise $11 million for charity selling the baby photos, how much could they make for pictures of the next child being conceived!

[Gipsy]

mmmm LM not sure about that. I mean, the magazines are going to make a lot of money out of those photos even if you do pose for free. How many times does someone get a chance to raise 11 million or even 1 million for charity just by posing for a photo? I'd say go for it myself.

[Lazy Mummy]

I heard that the Pitt-Jolies were giving it all to charity, so I guess I can respect that (sort of) though I much prefer the SJP / Nicole Kidman approach. Far more tasteful (but I forgot - who, really, cares about taste anymore, outside of us old fuddie-duddies on AM?)

[Dave Farmer]

and to think there are starving in the world!

[Channa from Bath]

yes, respect to SJP for not chargin like that.

[Gipsy]

The article doesn't say what the celebs did with the money. 11 million would be a real boon to a charity - I hope that the Pitt's donated the cash. If so, then good for them and anyone else who uses the madness of this to raise money for charity.

My respect to Nicole and Sarah. Although the fund raiser in me thinks ...

[Tara@From Dawn Till Dusk]

I like SJP even more now if that is possible!