It's no ones business if they donate the money. If it was me i would put the money in a trust fund for the baby. Sure they have a ton of money now but that doesn't mean they always will, look at other celebs like MC Hammer.

Personally I find it distasteful to sell your child's picture, unless of course it is to give back, like the Jolie Pitts did.

I think that donating the money to charity is a great idea for them. It shows that celebrities do donate. In response to the pp, I would think that these celebrity parents have already started a trust fund before the baby came. At least I hope so due to like mentioned the whole MC Hammer thing.

Are you sure about the Nicole Richie pictures to People???
I heard from a pretty reliable source that Nicole is holding out because she prefers if Harlow is older (4-5 months old) and also would rather a magazine like Tom and Katie and not a tabloid.

Anyways, can't wait to see the pics.

Sarah's note: Personally, we have no idea, we're just posting what Gawker is reporting.

I may be in the minority but I don't care what they do with the money they receive...and i totally understand making a deal with a magazine because if not, it just heightens the paps to be following and stalking and frankly as a new parent, I'd rather be proactive in the hopes of lessening that. In the end I am not going to judge these parents for decisions they make...they are gonna do what's best for them and the baby (or babies) in the end and that's really all that matters.

Frankly I could careless if celebs choose to keep the money they make off of the "first" photos of their child(ren). If people suggest they should donate the money then really talk to the magazine companies who shell out the outrageous amounts of money just for pictures of a celebs child. Keep the money ~ don't keep the money..Not like I'm going to lose sleep over it.

Personally, I LOVE seeing the whole photoshoot and interview layout in magazines. They are my favorite pieces. However, the mega cash that's exchanged does make me uncomfortable and annoyed, UNLESS it's going to charity. I especially liked how Bridget Moynahan had OK! donate the $ to a disease foundation that her friend's child suffers from.

On the other hand, I also liked what Sarah Jessica Parker and Brooke Shields (with Rowan) did, which was to let the photographers know when they would be released from the hospital, and quickly pose for photos outside. Or Debra Messing and Denise Richards (with Lola) had a hospital bed photo taken and released. Then no money is exchanged, the picture is taken, and it's done.

I also like what Salma Hayek and Courteney Cox-Arquette did, which was have their own personal portraits taken, and then release one through the Associated Press, so all the media had the same snapshot.

Of course, Denise and Brooke went on to do Us and People photoshoots, but the initial 'gotta see her' attitude was diminished, because we had already seen her. The nice layout and interview was just a bonus.

Anyway, I love seeing photos and I understand that it does help the safety issue with the paparazzi. I just would hope the celebs do donate the money, seeing as how insane the sums are, a lot of the time. But then again, I can see how others wouldn't care if they kept it -- it's their kid.

This is a great post for discussion!

The reason many celebrities chose a magazine to sell the pictures to is because the paparazzi will be hounding them even more to get the first shot of the baby then all that money will go into that person's pocket. Might as well attempt to alleviate some of that and support a good cause.

I don't care what they do with the money either. If they choose to put i away or give it to charity, it is fine with me. After all it is their child that everyone wants to see, including all of us........

Let them decide and who are we to judge being that we all frequent this awesome site that shows us all of the ins and outs of celebrity babies.

well, with the kind of money JLo and Mark have I think donating to charity is a good idea if you are going to sell your baby's pictures. I realize the public wants to see so this is a good way to control the interest. BUT....that much money would be so nice to give to a charity. Seriously...with JLo and her music, movies, perfume, clothing, etc...do you honestly think they will ever run out of money??? Their grandchildren are set for life. They would have to make some serious financial screw ups to lose it all. I hope the twins are healthy and happy!

I don't like the idea of selling baby pictures for these ridiculous sums of money. If it was donated to charity I would feel better about it. But when these celebrities already have more money that they know what to do with it just feels like they are profiting off of their children. However, I have to admit I love seeing pictures of the children.

Who really needs another $4-6 million when one's parents are millionaires perhaps a hundred times over?? From here, it just reeks of greed.

I think the fees these celebs get paid for pimping their kid(s) is insane. They lose the right to plead for privacy when they get their palms greased by the very media they claim invades their privacy.

Can't have it both ways.

Perhaps actors Christian Bale and Carrie Moss can give lessons on keeping their kids out of the public sphere.

Like others of you, the $$$ makes me uncomfortable...whether it has been donated, put in a trust fund or used to purchase a mansion. I understand that paps will hound until the first photo is released, which is why I'd probably just release one myself.

I'm in no way a celebrity...just a SAHM who writes a parenting blog...so I guess I wouldn't know until I was in their shoes, but making money off of a child seems wrong.

Especially when the next interview after the first photo shoot spread celebs usually talk about how sick it is to have people following their child around.

But again, that's just my 2cents.

I could care less with what they do with their money. Most of them donate plenty to charity anyway. I don't think it's tacky to sell the pictures because it's worth it so they won't be chased around by the paps. In reality none of us have no idea of what it's like to be chased down by complete strangers.

Certain celeb parents are huge paparazzi targets, thus the kids are too, despite having an official baby photo shoot (like the Jolie-Pitts and the Spears/Federlines). They kinda can't win!

Magazines offer money for first baby pictures and I see no reason not to take it. They are not taking the money from anyone's pocket except for the paying magazine. If it keeps the paparazzi off your back that's an added bonus. JLo is a far bigger star than Christian Bale and Carrie Moss. Magazine publishers are not stupid. They know which celebrities and babies the public are more interested in worldwide. And that is what's driving this particular piece of commerce. THE PUBLIC. The public goes away. Magazines won't shell out money for celebrity baby pictures. And it's hardly pimping. Unless you've been around children who have been exploited as sex workers or underage factory workers I would not go around comparing selling a picture of Shiloh to pimping. If anything, I hope the celebrities use the money to beef up security when they are out with their children to keep paparrazi and rabid fans away.

Well, we have to remember that for these celebrities, a million dollars isn't as much for them as it is for us. I really like Melissa's idea to put it into a trust fund for the baby. I don't care what happens personally. It's their right to do whatever they want, and if it sells, it'll sell.

I am totally NOT in favor of celebs selling their baby's photos to a magazine even if the money goes to charity. There is something extremely unseemly about selling photos of your kids in exchange for money even if the money goes to charity.

In terms of the paparazzi, Shiloh is almost two years old and the paps are still following her. Selling the first pics does nothing to diminish interest because their will still be a race as to who can get the first candid shots.

If I were a celeb I would never sell pics of my baby. It is a game which I would not play. I would take one pic myself and release to the AP and that would be it. The same celebs who sell pics of their kids are often the same ones who will cry to the public about how they hate that the press invades their privacy.

I also think that interest in a child's photo diminishes over time. If six months rolls by and you still have seen someone's baby, the odds are you'll move on to the next celeb that is having a kid.

I don't really care if they keep or donate the money. At least they have a little more control of when the first picture is released.

I think donating the money for these first pictures is the right way to go. With their multi millions, they don't really need 6 million more for selling photos. As someone mentioned earlier their children and grandchildren are set for life. They have enough money to set up a trust or college fund, so why not give that money to charity to help someone else out. I wouldn't think they were awful though if they decided to keep the money. I just think giving to charity would be better.

As to them selling the first pics to diminish the paparazzi attention, I think that makes sense. I do like the idea of a celeb submitting a personal photo and therefore forgoing the whole price for the first baby pictures. That just seems more humble to me. I have no idea what it is like to be a celeb, so this is just my opinion. I don't know if I would make the same decisions I have stated if I was famous. ;)

It's good they're donating the money to charities, but at the end, this whole thing is nothing but a battle of egos. Just my opinion.

I don't see why they have to "present" their babies in magazines.

The whole money thing, even if it is for donations makes me uncomfortable. I don't think I could sell my kids photos for some form of exchange, it just has a wrong feeling to me.

I agree with uggamugga.com when they mentioned that the baby photo thing seems crazy when celebs give the photos and then complain about the paparazzi taking too many after that.

I don't think these celebs NEED to sell a photo to tide over the masses. they make it sound like they have to do it or it will be a circus. I'm eager to see a photo of some of these new celeb babies too but I'm not antsy in my seat about it...lol! :)

Personally, I think it's a better idea if they do sell the pictures. A: it stops the paparazzi from stalking them, and B: there are so many people that would like to see the pictures, including us! As for what they do with the money, it's their child & thus, entirely their choice. Personally, I would either donate the money to charity or put it into a trust fund for the child. But still, it's up to them & no, I'm not really bothered what they do with it TBH.

Toontown, it's that they want to "present" their babies to magazines..it's more a pressure thing. If you don't..well good luck going out without being stalked by the paps. Also, don't forget the paps can pay their whole rent for a year usually with the first baby pictures of a celebrity baby but yet the celebrities are the bad guys here?

i actually agree with toontown - I think the celeb's ego gets the best of them, like the rumor that Tom & Katie were hiding Suri until they received the best offer for her first picture. They cannot argue that they are just extremely private, because we have seen at least 10,000 photos of Suri since her Vanity Fair debut! Why do celebs feel their children need introductions, unless they are setting them up to be hunted. On the issue of payment for pix, I don't think there's anything wrong with parents keeping $ for their own child's image - this is the game everyone is playing. The fact is SOMEONE is going to make money off of Shiloh, why not the parents? I'd say place the cash in a trust fund. End of story.

I generally do not like the idea of putting newborns on magazine covers in exchange for money. But if they have to, I'd prefer the money to go to charity rather than the celeb parents' own pockets.

See in Australia, when Lleyon Hewitt and his wife claimed they were donating the money to an orphanage. In the end, it was discovered they kept the money. Now that's distasteful.

Meg- People Magazine is hardly a tabloid!

Lauren and Renee- ITA! Unfortunately, if celebs DON'T release a picture of their baby, the paps are going to go absolutely crazy trying to get a pic. For some of the bigger celebs, such as the J-Ps, of course they are still going to be chased by lots of paps. However, by releasing photos of the kids when they are a few months old (or newly adopted, like in the case of Pax's first photos), they are at least lessening the demand for pictures of the kid, and thus the paps won't go quite as crazy as they would otherwise.

I also disagree that the interest in the "first photos" goes down as the baby gets older, especially for more famous celebs and celebs who are huge paparazzi targets (such as the J-Ps, the Spears-Federlines, and the Holmes-Cruises). For example, the paps were literally camped out on Tom and Katie's lawn in an attempt to capture the first photos of Suri! When she would finally be seen was practically all that the media talked about until she finally made her debut in Vanity Fair!

Anyway, I personally don't care what celebs do with the money from their first photo shoots!

All of that said, if Nicole and Joel DO indeed wait until Harlow is 4 or 5 months old before they release her first pictures, I just hope that there won't be any crazy conspiracy theories floating around Harlow (a la poor Suri Cruise)!

Also, I thought J-Lo was overheard saying that the twins are DUE on Saturday, rather than scheduled to be born on Saturday????????? And speaking of J-Lo, I'm a bit surprised she is planning to release photos of the twins at all, considering how private she's been with the pregnancy (then again, Christina was also very private about her pregnancy, and she just released Max's first photos!).

If they want to sell their baby pictures, then that's fine. But, don't then complain about lack of privacy and the paps not leaving them alone. If they open the door, the media will pounce, and celebs have no one to blame but themselves.

BTW, I think Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick did the best thing when their son was born - posed outside of the hospital for a few minutes so everyone could get their pics and then leave the family alone.

Sarah's note: That is a good idea. Brooke Shields did it too. Someone mentioned it above in the comments, I think Pam?

Celebritybabylover, I think J.LO is just so happy to finally have her babies being born that she is ready to show them off to the world asap. I admit I don't get the complaints about celebrity sell their photos when we are on a celebrity baby blog???

Also, it does give the celebrities a little bit of control. I think sometimes we forget that. When you become famous, privacy is rare and if you can control who gets the first pictures of your child, why not? I don't think it has to do with their egos, I think it's control.

Some of you make it sound like they are using their babies as money machines which I don't think is the case. This is another case where celebrities can't win in people's eyes but yet the public is the one that desires/demands to see the first pictures of celebrities' children.

Renee- Once again, ITA! To Tess and the other commentors who have mentioned that celebs shouldn't complain about the paps taking photos of their children when they themselves sell introduction photos of them- When you think about it, most of the celebs who complain about the paps are not asking the paps to stop taking pictures of their kids.

Brad Pitt, for example, has said several times that he understands that the paps are just doing their job. He has also made it very clear that all he is asking is for the paps to give his family a little more space. That's a perfectly reasonable request, especially considering that the paps seem to get right up in poor Maddox, Pax, Zahara, and Shiloh's faces. Just because the paps have a job to do does NOT give them the right to invade a celeb, or a celeb child's, personal space!

One of the only celebs I can think of who has specifically said that he doesn't like it when the paps take pictures of his kids AND definitely doesn't want them to be taken is Johnny Depp. I'm pretty sure that he once said: "We (himself and Vanessa Paradis) chose this life, our kids didn't", or something very similar.

Anyway, it seems to me that most celebs who complain about the paps are NOT saying, "don't take pictures of my children!", but rather are simply doing what most of us do at sometime or another....Complaining about an aspect of their jobs.

Well, with SJP and Brooke doing the hospital thing. well, the point still remains that paparazzi still gets pics of their babies on a regular basis and profit from it. So what was accomplished there. There is nothing wrong with what they did, but then they could have sold it and donated the money, instead on letting the paps profit from it.

In europe, the royals do the same, release yearly pics of their kids to diminish paparazzi interest. What is the difference between being in with your kids in a magazine and putting them on christmas cards?? The fact is that people love to show off their kids. the famous people just have more people interested so why not a magazine.
I find nothing wrong with it. i think people that disapprove of it really don't know what they are talking about. there is a big difference between family pictures in a magazine and 5 to 10 men with cameras trying to take pictures of children.
Are celeb supposed to go the MJ route and made their kids wear masks in public for the sake of privacy.
I loves what Sarah Jessica Parker said about it when she was on Letterman a few years ago.
She said James in not a normal kid, there is no reason to try and mold him into normalcy. He has to find his way in life. And its best its not made into a big deal as opposed to turning 18 and getting bombarded with attention that she has protected him from for years. And then he not being able to handle it.
PS thats one of the reasons Dave shows pictures of Harry.

Well said Renee! ITA!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.