Is it right for celebrities to sell pictures of their babies? – Part 2

No one offered to buy the photos of my newborn baby, I’m not famous enough yet. What would have been my reaction is someone made an offer ? A lound an clear “yes”, for three reasons: control, low risk, and money.

For each photographer ready to pay for such photos, ten others are ready to take the unofficial version, and using every possible way to reach their goal is no problem for them. Selling photos give the parents a total control, as they can decide which pictures will go public, and which will remain within their private album.

I would definitely prefer to publish photos of the family in a quiet, relaxed environment, than see stolen pictures of us, possibly in a sub-optimal situation. All parents have less than glorious moments with their kids, and pictures of that can seriously hurt someone’s public image. Selling official pictures will not void the appeal that stolen pictures anyway have, but it will help to reduce it, as there will be no opportunity for papers like “The very first and scandalous unofficial photo of “.

While image control is important, particularly for famous people, babies are some kind of an exception. I’m not saying that babies have no identity, but they change quickly, and are not so easy to recognize. Do you think you would recognize the famous Pitt-Jolie twins if you saw them without their parents being around ? If I show you a picture of my daughter when she was 1 day, one week, and one month old, you would probably not be sure it’s the same baby.

Selling pictures of older kids, or teenagers raises other questions, but babies case is simpler. I honestly can’t see how publishing a baby’s picture could endanger him or her. Being a celebrity’s kid is a risk by itself, some photos won’t change that.

Last but not least on the list of good reasons to say yes: the money. One could argue that celebrities don’t need the extra money that selling baby pictures will generate. But the market is present, so why not pocket the money ? Do you think that the magazines would sell copies at a lower price if the photos are for free ? More and more celebrities also support charities, and money earned with such media-oriented actions is frequently given to their favourite organization.

Does that means that celebrities going this way are somehow selling their babies ? Somehow yes, but being celebrities they already sold themselves, and hiding a baby would result in more media pressure to get pictures of him or her, and this is not a good way. Michael Jackson brilliantly demonstrated that

Being a public person has some advantages and drawbacks for oneself but also for one’s relatives, and I don’t see any reason not to profit from it, particularly if nobody is harmed in the process.