“Jessica Simpson reportedly sold her baby pics to People Mag for $800K” links

Jessica Simpson‘s baby photos probably sold for $800,000 to People Mag. [Celebuzz]
Gwyneth Paltrow is the new face of Hugo Boss Nuit Por Femme. Why is Gwyneth acting so poor lately? She‘s doing ads for everything. [LaineyGossip]
Shauna Sand continues to the classiest bitch ever. [Dlisted]
Charlize Theron & K-Stew on a French talk show. [Pop Sugar]
Cough. Michael Fassbender. Cough. [Pajiba]
You can hear Chris Brown‘s awful song here. [Yeeeah]
Ryan Gosling is gansta, yo. [The Blemish]
Sofia Vergara without makeup! [Evil Beet]
Flynn Kerr-Bloom is such a BIG baby. [A Socialite Life]
Kate Upton in a not-great dress. [IDLITW]
This is the story that CB & I don‘t want to cover. [Gawker]
We need to have a conversation about Melania Trump‘s face. [Go Fug Yourself]
3-year-old dances to Gotye, is adorable. [OMG Blog]
Kim Kardashian has a sweet ride. [Moe Jackson]
The “Don’t Show Your Chocha” movement is gaining ground to the “More Long Sleeves” movement. [The Frisky]
Miley Cyrus‘s eye makeup is freaking me out. [ICYDK]
Zooey Deschanel to play Loretta Lynn? I don‘t hate that idea. [CDAN]


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

50 Responses to ““Jessica Simpson reportedly sold her baby pics to People Mag for $800K” links”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rita says:

    I bet Jessica was a cute baby but why pay $800,000 for 30 year old baby pictures?

  2. dorothy says:

    It just seems so wrong to financially capitalize on what should be loved and protected by their parents…not sold to the highest bidder. Celebrities have a whole different standard.

    • Ramona Q says:

      My understanding is that celebrities sell their baby’s pictures bc otherwise paps would stalk them trying to get the first shot – and then the $ would go to the paps, to boot.

    • only1shmoo says:

      I’m totally with you ladies on this one. This seems like pure greed from people who have no objections about exploiting their family for profit. If you don’t want the paps snapping photos, I’m sure you can keep a low profile (Natalie Portman and other celebs have done that).

      Worse yet, I think selling baby pics to the highest bidder only makes the public more anxious to see the baby on a regular basis; just look at what Suri Cruise has to go through.

  3. claire says:

    I think People mag highly overestimates how much people care about seeing Jessica Simpson’s baby.

  4. SirSnarksalot says:

    because she needs more money than she already has?

  5. lucy2 says:

    I can’t imagine it’s that much. But who knows.

  6. bobjustbob says:

    Seriously, Jessica Simpson’s baby is not worth this much?? She’s successful at business, but so are the Kardashians, I put her in same category now as she barely does any acting or singing, so her baby being born means as much as Kourtenay K’s baby. People are desperate lately I think!

  7. mel2 says:

    Not bad payday but being that everyone thinks Jessica has a weight problem (which she doesnt) I think people will be curious to see the baby especially since the baby weighs 9lbs. I’ll buy that issue.

  8. Mew says:

    Boss designed SS uniforms for Nazis. Go Gwyneth go!

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      *eyeroll* That was the original head of the company, who died in 1948. I think it’s ok to choose not to boycott a company over 60 years after a company head did something atrocious. I’m Jewish and even I think that’s ridiculous.

    • JD says:

      The Nazis were evil, and I loathe everything they stood for, but they did look good.

      And people of the Jewish faith do drive Mercedes-Benz, too.

    • lower-case deb says:

      just one thing. HB did not design the uniform, “only” manufacturing it. not saying that one is better than the other. you can even say i’m nitpicking.

      however, i do think that despite it’s atrocious past, that’s just it: the past. what i do hope is that with that kind of past, they will be more conscious of what they are doing now and making good changes or hopefully exemplary ones, not just to avoid repeating history, but to actually learn from history.

      i don’t know about their current industry practices, but that’s just my hope.

  9. Hautie says:

    I tend to wonder if People Magazine base the value of new baby pictures, on how well previous issue’s sold with Jessica on the cover.

    If they are offering her $800K then her issues must sell extremely well.

    And I mention earlier this week that Melania Trump‘s face at the Met Gala was not looking good. Plus she had it covered in orange Cheeto dust.

  10. divaonthereal says:

    It’s always been about money with Jessica since the mention of being preagnant so why not make a healthy payday. Knowing how much of a Turkey jessica was looking like, her daughter also must look like a big butterball Turkey too. Why didn’t she do like Beyonce & Miarah did and post pictures of their child for free? Won’t be buying the magazine, but will if anything look at the photo’s while in the store.

  11. Marjalane says:

    Yuck, yuck, no, yuck, call me any name you want, but yuck- I DO NOT want to see any child over the age of 2 breastfeeding. I would love to see a study of those “attachment parenting” kids in 20 years, and see how they turned out. The one who was talking about nursing her 7 year old about made me lose my lunch.

    • MorticiansDoItDeader says:

      These people give “attachment parenting” a bad name. I baby wore until my sons started crawling (the first at 8 1/2 months and the second at 5 months). I also co-sleep (my first slept in our bed until he was almost 3 and the second came along) and I’m still breastfeeding my 13 month old (my 3 1/2 year old stopped breastfeeding at 18 months). I don’t subscribe to the Dr. sears school of attachment parenting, I just do what feels right and comes naturally. I didn’t even know what I was doing had a name. My children are very independent and self sufficient and I’d like to think my parenting style had something to do with it. That being said, my friend is a pretty hardcore attachment parenter and was breastfeeding her newborn and three year old at the same time. When she did go out in public, which wasn’t often, she got quite a few unpleasant looks. Her three year old seemed emotionally immature for his age (up until recently) and I think the hardcore attachment parenting could have had something to do with it. Anyway, to each their own. As long as your child is happy and healthy, who am I to judge how you parent.

      • orion70 says:

        I’m not quite sure why a 3 year old would even need to breastfeed in public. I mean babies are relying mostly on breastfeeding for nutrition, but a 3 year old I would imagine is much more nutritionally independent. If they’re doing it for comfort, I’d have imagined it more at nap time or something. Not while you’re out at the mall.

        The kid on the cover though, is just a few weeks shy of 4.

  12. sarah says:

    the Bloom bunch is the cutest family ever.

  13. MJ says:

    Zooey Deschanel could probably pull off a Loretta Lynn biopic OK since she can actually sing, but she is no Sissy Spacek! They already told that story, and it is an awesome movie!

  14. fabgrrl says:

    I hadn’t read about that breastfeeding photo before. Yeesh! It’s one thing to talk about it, put to put it on the cover of a major magazine? I feel badly for that kid. The mom can put her pretty face, and surprisingly pert rack wherever, but the kid should be exposed like this.

  15. mar says:

    I think that is gross. Unless you are REALLY donating it to a good cause, it is beyond tacky.

    • Camille (The original) says:

      Of course it is tacky, but this is JSimpleton we are talking about here. She is JLo lite in that regard- everything is about the $. I doubt VERY much that she will be donating that money to charity like some other celebs have done in the past.

  16. DreamyK says:

    What in the hell? Is that really the Fassdong? Hahahahaaa

  17. lettylynton says:

    Way to go, Shauna Sand. That was sooo graphic; was it staged? It seemed staged. Oh, and I love the dude’s shorts. I guess he borrowed them from her.

  18. the original bellaluna says:

    Uvvvvvvvvv course she did. I expected nothing less of her;

    Mayhaps the Goopster is saving up for a divorce/single parenthood;

    Sofia looks a lot better without her war paint than a lot of other “stars”;

    Flynn is adorable!

    Melania’s definitely got that “pulled pork” alien face.

    Happy Friday, everyone! :D

  19. Kevin says:

    That is a sweet ride Kim K bought with her ill gotten gains. I’m guessing that she has a sweater tied around her gianourmous azz to protect her leather seats from her funk/Kanye leakage. Bitch better be in the gym doing piss deflection reps.

  20. Courtney says:

    you people need to get your heads out of your asses and realize that celebs have been selling pics of their kids to magazines for nearly 75 years and making 6-7 figures for them for nearly 50 and magazines are more expensive now than they were then. when Patricia Neal sold the first pics of her Youngest daughter Lucy she recieved 3.85 million dollars from Life Magazine the magazine cost .50 then and sold 12,000,000 copies of course people magazine didn’t exist yet. when Natasha Richardson sold the first pictures of her son Michael she recieved 8.5 million dollars and that issue of people magazine that cost a dollar at the time sold 14 million copies and part of each purchase went to Amfar. now people costs 5.25 at news stands and I can see this issue selling about 4.000.000 copies which would mean 21 million dollars made and I can see Jessica donating 1/3 to 1/4 of it to charity and putting the rest in a college fund for her daughter

  21. bagladey says:

    Why would Jessica Simpson who already has sooo much money, sell the pictures of her baby? Sounds greedy and no-class. Didn’t that stinker Halle Berry simply issue her own (free) photo of Nahla to ward off the papps?

  22. tru tru says:

    but everyone wants to dog out Beyonce, Jessica is the greedy money grubber.

    she will make alot of loot from this pregnancy, I used to like her but she is sickening to me now.

    she’s the one making money off of “supposedly” losing weight, when a blind item was noted that she will do a tummy tuck and lipo and claim that she lost it on the “program”

    she’s the one making a ton of money off of her bambino.

    I’m already sick of the future stories to come from her and her folks about this baby by a loser. (paid interviews)

    she’s greedy in more ways than one

  23. bubbles says:

    that’ll buy her a whole lot of McCallan’s. cheers. she is going to need it.

  24. Snowflake says:

    If i had kids and got offered $800 thousand dollars for pics of them, you bet your a*s I’d do it. That’s college tuition for them, first car money, first home money, etc. you never know how your career is going to go, especially in show business. got to hustle while you can. not like they won’t take pics of the kid anyway.

  25. Courtney says:

    um Mariah did it the way she did because she was gonna get barely nothing if she sold them because people think women over 40 having children is irresponsible it’s not. Calling Jessica a turkey while she was pregnant is uncalled for she had complications which caused her to gain more weight than she wanted to same as Mariah did with the twins and 9lbs 13 oz for a full term single born child isn’t overweight by any streach of the immagination

  26. divaonthereal says:

    @Courtney Jessica had complications of just eating every damm thing in sight. She had become a over stuff pig and look so gross while pregnant and her baby probably look just as gross being a over stuff little pig. Now if the likes of Mariah, Hallie and Beyonce didn’t sell photo’s of their child just for profit, Jessica could have done the same. She won’t donate but instead will finds other ways to profit off this child. People seem to have tried and dogged out Beyonce throughout her entired pregnancy but in turn Beyonce have been the calm most honest one and not trying to profit off her beautiful daughter Blue Ivy, that’s someone I could respect for many reasons. Beyonce being a bigger star than Jessica and also Beyonce’s husband a bigger star,they chose not to sell photo’s of their daughter proves it’s not about how much money from the higest bidder because that wasn’t on their agenda, they show pictures of Blue Ivy for free and thought about their fans to do so. So my question to Jessica you could havae done the same and not trying to profit at all cause.