I think it's great usher has turned it down. Most of the time the celebrities who complain about the media and the paparazzi are the first ones getting 4 million for baby pics. You can do like salma hayek and usher are doing, if you really just wanna show a first pic of the baby and release a picture for no money, it can be done. I don't remember jennifer garner getting paid for baby pics either. I don't see nothing wrong if a celebrity wants to sell baby pics, but with all the money they have it's nice to see a few like the ones I mentioned just release a picture or just see the baby whenever.

I agree. Even those that give the money they get to charity shouldn't do it because the likes of Jolie-Pitt, Lopez, Aguilera can give the amount they get from their own pockets and give it to charity. It isn't as if paparazzi will never take pics of the baby since they won't be keeping the baby/babies indoors all the time. Just release a picture and call it a day. If the likes of PEOPLE or whatever magazine pays for the pics want to offer $4m or $6m then they should find a charity and donate the money themselves.

It is celebs who can put an end to this trend. This is why Shiloh is now put on tabloid covers without her parents and the same will happen to Lopez's children. Once you take money for your child, he or she belongs to the magazines for better or worse.

i read that his wife was asking for 2 million from essence magazine but they kept saying turning it down.

Whether or not a celeb sells the pic has little to do with if the tabs will put the child on their covers. Tom and Katie did not sell their pics to VANITY FAIR yet SURI is on tabloid covers as much as SHILOH.

If the media is absurd enough to pay millions for pix, then it might as well go to a good cause. The papparazi all live in mansions and drive expensive cars from stalking celebrities!!!

Sure, now that everyone knows they were shopping around pictures, he denies it and poses on Essence mag for free.

Usher needs to let the claims of the media hating on his family go already, everyone is over the fact that teenage hearthrob Usher is married with a kid. He's the one who keeps bringing it up. I haven't heard anything about them in the news for months. Get over it Usher.

sleekraven: i heard the jolie-pitts give like 50% of their income to charity. so, they at least do give great amounts to charity out of their own pockets.

I would rather the celebs get the money from the sale of pics of their children than complete strangers with cameras.Don't like celebrities getting paid for their children photos, don't buy the magazines. But I do wonder why some of the people complaining are on a celebrity baby blog

If he didn't take any money for the pictures, that means he's "donated" all the profits to Essence magazine. It would have been nice if some of that money could have gone to charity instead, rather than into the pockets of the magazine publisher.

@ Lara

Celebs can't win can they? He does not take money for his kid it is a problem! If he does then it is also a problem.

yoco, Suri's father, according to him, is pretty much on a first name basis with the paparazzi who take his pictures and pictures of his children. The fact that the little girl is always carried facing the camera for easy access is another measure of how the tabloids turn little children into celebrities. My point is this, all children should be protected at all cost. In the UK, the faces of children of celebrities are blurred out in some publications because their parents simply won't allow it. We shouldn't know too much about these children and stories should not be written revolving around them.

MB, they give part of their income to charity but it is not 50%, if it were Brad won't be worth as much as he does same as Jolie. Most celebs give to charity, they don't just make an announcement of it just like anybody else.

Celebs need to curb this behaviour. The media will take pictures of these beautiful children because they won't be hidden at home so there is no need to have someone pay them for a "debut" priviledge. It is the exchange of money that is wrong and hiding behind "doing it for a good cause" is not a right excuse for it especially when we are talking about multi-millionaires. Let PEOPLE magazine donate the $6m they gave to JLO to something like UNICEF themselves. JLO runs a successful empire. It should be that we are not able to identify these children in a crowd of other kids and those kind of days are drying up fast. It is sad.

Sleekraven, I have to ask but if you don't like celebrity children being shown, why do you visit this site? You have the right to be here of course, I'm just curious

Is he kidding me??? He can’t be serious. And he doesn’t think that the magazine will be pimping out his child. They will make millions from the magazines that are sold of pictures that feature his child. So why not use some of those proceeds to do some good for charity. Essence will simply reap the benefits and pocket the money for themselves, so why not get paid to do the shoo? Give the money away but don’t act like it was crime for the other celebrities that did it. The cutthroat paparazzi make their living from hounding these people so take back some control. He’s trying to sound little to righteous to me and it makes no sense, trust me if he doesn’t make the money someone will, besides we all know that he doesn’t need it.