People Magazine signs on to ‘No Kids Policy’, begrudgingly & with many caveats

people5

Last month, Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell threatened the delicate and tenuous ecosystem of celebrity media and how that celebrity media covers celebrity babies and children. Kristen and Dax began tweeting about their “no kids policy” and they asked their followers to “boycott” any celebrity magazine that published paparazzi photos of celebrity children. Both Kristen and Dax began tagging things as #pedorazzi and it became a thing. Now some celebrity media outlets have felt the need to clarify their positions on using paparazzi photos of children. What was surprising (to me at least) is that it seems like People Magazine isn’t really signing on to Dax and Kristen’s “No Kids Policy” (which I think is BS anyway), People really is just “clarifying” their existing policy. Here’s People’s editorial, written by Jess Cagle, Editorial Director of PEOPLE.

Lately, several celebrities, including Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry, have been vocal about the paparazzi who can sometimes make life hell for stars and their children. These celebrity parents have lobbied to increase punishment for overly aggressive photographers who, for example, harass parents and kids outside schools. They’ve also made the media more sensitive to the brutal tactics some freelance photographers use to get even the most innocent-looking shots of celebs’ kids at play. The editors at PEOPLE have always been careful when dealing with photos of kids, but in the past few months our sensitivity has been significantly heightened, and our editorial practices have changed accordingly. When I took over as Editorial Director of PEOPLE in January, I told our staff that PEOPLE would not publish photos of celebs’ kids taken against their parents’ wishes, in print or online.

Of course, we still run a lot of sanctioned photos – like exclusive baby pictures taken with the cooperation of celebrity parents, and photos of stars posing with their kids at events (like a red carpet) where they’re expecting and willing to be photographed. But we have no interest in running kids’ photos taken under duress. Of course, there may be rare exceptions based on the newsworthiness of photos. And there’s always the tough balancing act we face when dealing with stars who exploit their children one day, and complain about loss of privacy the next.

Recently, Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard took to TV and social media to criticize outlets that run “unauthorized” photos of celebs and their kids. PEOPLE’s current practices actually address their concerns. My colleagues and I are journalists, but we’re also mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles. I have close friends who are actors, and I’ve seen them struggle to protect their kids from photographers and reporters who cross the line. At PEOPLE we pride ourselves on covering entertainment and human-interest stories with respect for the truth and compassion for our subjects. We grow and evolve by listening to our audience – but also by being fair to the people we write about in print and online.

[From People]

“And there’s always the tough balancing act we face when dealing with stars who exploit their children one day, and complain about loss of privacy the next.” Therein is the problem, and I love that People Mag says it outright. I want to buy Jess Cagle a drink! I don’t have any problem with calling out the hyper-aggressive paparazzi who stalk children – call them out. Don’t work with them. Don’t buy those photos. But what are the blogs and the print celebrity media supposed to do when, say, Ben Affleck is waging an Oscar campaign and he steps out several times a week with his photogenic daughters at the same Starbucks that Nicole Richie and Ashley Greene frequent? What happens when Hilary Duff separates from her husband and she wants the world to know that she’s still a good mother AND that she’s no longer wearing her wedding ring, so she makes sure she gets pap’d in hot pants whilst holding her kid?

And, incidentally, most of the baby/kid photos being run on blogs and media sites these days are from celebrity Instagram, Tumblr and Twitter accounts. Social media has made it easier to provide “authorized” photos of celebrity kids, so is that included in this “No Kid Policy” too?

Oh, and Just Jared signed on to the “No Kids Policy” too. And Dax Shepard has declared all of this a “win” on Twitter.

people3

people4

people2

Photos courtesy of People Magazine.

 

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

170 Responses to “People Magazine signs on to ‘No Kids Policy’, begrudgingly & with many caveats”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Marianne says:

    I know Justjared said they would still post pictures of kids at red carpet events and celebrities twitter pictures. Stuff like that.

    • nicole says:

      Yes, exactly. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend there’s not a difference between pap photos and a person’s instagram or the posed shots above on most of those People covers. Same goes for red carpets. I’m disappointed at how this site is treating this issue actually.

      I know lots of people use their kids, sadly, but I think a moratorium on all those pap photos will stop that behaviour as there is no upside to putting your kid in that situation if People isn’t buying. What are the blogs supposed to do when celebs are using their kids for the paparazzi for their Oscar campaign? Ignore them so the problem will go away.

      • mimi says:

        @nicole

        MTE. Very nicely worded.

      • sienna says:

        There often is no difference between red carpets and pap shots. We all know that celebs call paps when it is convenient for them. And they take huge swag bags that are offered to them and their kids, companies pray that their products will be papped on these celeb children, and parents know that is why they are given them.

        I am with CB, I think most celebs are quite two-faced about the whole issue. It seems quite easy to me… f you don’t want to get papped, don’t make your main home in LA.

      • FLORC says:

        Sienna
        So many celebs do make their home in or near LA and manage to fly completely under the radar. That’s what makes much of this just so foolish. They get papped because they want to. It’s well known what locations and stores to avoid. If they truly wanted to not have their kids papped they know how to do that.

      • sienna says:

        You are absolutely right Florc, many of them do live there and avoid the attention, they just find another farmer’s market, outside of Brentwood ;-)

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        That’s what I don’t get–if it bothered me THAT much, then I would go somewhere else. I wouldn’t be complaining in interviews. I would either go somewhere else, or leave the kids at home when I go grocery shopping…

      • Tiffany :) says:

        FLORC, I think you are partially right. There are areas where paps are known to be. But there are also paps that get assigned to celebs, so they sit near their home or gated community and follow them as soon as they see them leave.

        There are some ways to get aroud it (switching cars in underground parking garages, for example), but those take a LOT of effort and coordination (and money). I can understand why sometimes people wouldn’t want to make that effort just to stop by the grocery store on the way home from ballet class, etc.

      • mercy says:

        I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s a subject that has a lot of gray area that is being ignored by both sides.

        There are times when even relatively private celebrities need to participate in arranged photo shoots for one reason or another. To promote their work, to stave off phony tabloid reports, to stay ahead of the paparazzi by releasing their own photos first, to place them in a different location to throw off the paps on their tail, etc. There are also those celebs who understand and accept that their fans are interested in what’s going on in their lives and are willing to share on their terms. That doesn’t mean they deserve to be stalked, or are hypocrites for trying to assert control over the situation.

        The reality show people and Hillary Duff’s of the world are more likely to work with stalker paps and exploit their kids on a regular basis, but I don’t see many of them signing on to this campaign. It could even have the positive effect of curbing their exploitative tendencies, or at least put a damper on the market for their photos.

        Which brings us to the issue of why is there a market for these photos in the first place and who is buying them. I don’t watch the reality shows, or buy magazines they cover or products their ‘stars’ advertise, but there must be enough interest for it to be worthwhile to photograph them. On the other hand, there are celebrities I am interested in knowing more about and yes, I’d like to see pics of their kids if they want to share them.

    • Liv says:

      There’s a lot of hypocrisy in this whole debate. I find it utterly disgusting that Kristen Bell is spreading the term “pederazzi” so aggressively. The paps are not pedophiles and it’s very shallow and stupid to say so. I agree that there should be better laws to protect children and that paps are often crossing lines, but a big part of the problem are the celebritys themselves who fuel the interest and sell their kids out. I refuse to take their campaign seriously, because it doesn’t make sense when certain (actually quite a lot) celebritys made careers out of their children and familys.

      • Badirene says:

        ^^ This! 100% agree Liv, most celebrities will make some form of a deal with a pap, if not calling them to take photos doing exchanges, for instance Bono has a casual agreement here in Ireland with the media, no pics of his kids but fill your boots when it comes to him, no diva antics just snap away. It was also reported (by popbitch, who I would believe) that the Jolie-Pitts had an arrangement with the paps when in the UK, when its ok to take pics or not. The result was pics of them at home in the back garden with long lens, no diva antics either. To me it makes sense the celeb gets to control the situation and the viewer gets curiosity sated.

        And the use of the word “pederazzi” is awful, like when celebs compare getting pics taken to being raped- just hysterical language to get a reaction without any thought of what that word really means.

      • FLORC says:

        Kristen Bell never seemed all that likable to me. So, this is nothing new.

        Badirene took the thoughts out of my head. Using “ped” is a lame attempt to form a 1 sided argument. Are you with the pedorazzies or with the parents that only want to protect their children (when not exploiting them)?

      • nicole says:

        I think what is getting lost in this debate is that it isn’t about the celebrity, it’s about the kid who has no say.

        Yes, obviously many celebs do ridiculous stuff for attention and choose to put their kids in scary and bizarre situations. But these proposed laws and policies are not about the narcissistic celebs hoping to get papped with their adorable tots. They are about the kids who didn’t choose their fame hungry parent and didn’t choose to have adult photographers trampling each other to get the cutest pic. No pap photos of kids is for the kids benefit. Celebs can still use them as props in their instagram and not expose their kids to the insanity that is the paparazzi (also weird, but less traumatic).

      • KT says:

        Sigh. Does no one know their Latin root words? Pedo- simply means child. -Phile means lover. Thus the word pedophile literally means child lover. Just as a bibliophile is a book lover and an anglophile loves all things English. So “pedorazzi” would be child paparazzi.

      • Badirene says:

        KT I don’t think they were exhibiting their love of latin by using “pedorazzi”. They were going for hysteria and gut reaction from people.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I can’t get into too much detail, but there are absolutely a LOT of men with cameras who are claiming to be “paparazzi” who try to get pictures of celeb children in states of undress (up skirts on playground equipment, getting diapers changed, etc.).

        What is the line between a “paparazzi” and a predator with a camera? Because that line is so vague, I don’t blame people for wanting to err on the side of caution. I think it is a good thing People is making acknowledgements. Now celebs will have to own it when they “sanction” the photos, at least in People.

      • Down and Out says:

        @nicole – spot on. I was gonna post something similar, but you said it nicely.

        Even granting that many celebs can be enormous hypocrites, using their children for their careers, etc etc…. all of that does nothing to address the fact that the kids don’t have a choice in the matter.

      • Tazina says:

        I just saw photos of Seal with his kids at a soccer game. So I guess that’s okay? It doesn’t seem like much of a law to me. Time with family like that should not be allowed. It looked like the paps were right there in front of them. That sneaky shot of Halle Berry’s baby on the set of her movie seemed so invasive, obviously taken from quite a distance, but I guess he’s fair game now?

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Sandra Bullock adopted her baby and no one knew. Laura Linney (sp?) got pregnant and had the baby and there wasn’t a peep about it until they publicly announced his name. It can be done if you care enough.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Belle Epoch, Sandra Bullock was able to maintain her privacy for a couple months, but that isn’t the case now. She and her son get papped regularly. It is a LOT of work to avoid the paps. Forget about doing anything spontaneously!

    • Dommy Dearest says:

      Is anyone laughing at Dax besides me? Started out on Punk’d, married the one Sci-Fi chick, and now he thinks he’s someone. It just feels like he thinks HE’s a bigger deal than he really is and that’s why I’m laughing.

      I do think the paps need to back off in general doe. I saw a video of Katy Perry covering her face and they straight up held the door open [of her car] and stood there and took pictures. I’m sorry but I would have hit the photographer so hard the glass from the lens would have embedded itself in their eye.

    • Common Sense says:

      I don’t like or trust just jared, it belongs in the same cesspool as TMZ, X17, YAHOO, AND YOU TUBE. I wonder if all the posts on children and especially the dumb, nasty and racist comments they allowed about black children will now be removed.

  2. Jaderu says:

    At least People mag called out the baby pimpers. I think it’s going to become more apparent now, particularly if other mags follow suit, who exactly is and isn’t calling paps for candid photo ops.
    Now the Oscar campaigners are going to have to rely on talent to get the trophy. #nodisrespecttobenaffleck #cough #bullsh**

  3. V4Real says:

    I think it’s more of the rag mags like Star, and NE that celebrities are complaining about. I bet these two mags are not giving in so easily. It would probably boost thier sales now that other mags are backing off.

    • mercy says:

      This is an interesting point. In some cases the rarity of personal pics creates more of a demand, and it’s more likely the celebrity will be stalked. Will this also be the case with the tabloids, where the fewer of them willing to buy these pics lead to more readers for the ones who continue to?

  4. Lilo says:

    Pics from the celebrities verified private or official Social Media Sites are okay, at least that’s what I read.

  5. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    Okay, seriously–you nearly gave me a heart attack with that first picture/PEOPLE cover. I was like ‘WHAT!’ ‘WHEN!’…….

    I think that it’s a hard thing to know–which celebs call the paps. Like for the majority of celebs (at least the famous/talented ones) it’s a question of ‘Am I going to avoid the paps today?’. Like I’ve been thinking about the Ben Affleck pap question—when he was nominated for Argo, and we had a ton of pictures of him and his kids come out, etc…..was it because he was posing for the paps, or was it because there is a greater interest in him and his family, because he’s nominated???

    It’s a hard thing–I would use that attention because you really don’t have a choice, if you’re considered to be a moneymaker–unless you want to move……but I also wouldn’t want my kids to be photographed everywhere we go.

    I tend to agree about Hilary Duff–before she got divorced, I’d only seen two instances of pap pics–one was when she got her lips done or something, because she looked awful. But now, after she’s divorced, I’ve seen TONS of pictures of her. I do think that celebs cut deals with the Dailymail or something—because there are regular photographs of certain celebs almost weekly on that site, that aren’t really anywhere else.

    • Marianne says:

      I saw tons of pics of Hilary and her son before she got divorced. Tons of boring pictures of her walking out and about with her son. And she’s just not that famous to warrant the kind of attention. She’s probably one of those people who calls the paps because its the only way she can stay relevant.

      • LadySlippers says:

        But even IF celebs call the paps — we the public still need to buy the pics in order for the press to be interested. So D list celebs must have someone interested in them, even if it’s not me, in order to justify going and getting those shots.

    • Algernon says:

      There are places where the paps hang out and everyone in LA knows it, famous or not. Certain restaurants or hot spots, places like Brentwood Country Mart, LAX, the gyms where the top trainers work and they know celebrity clients will be coming and going, or the club Bootsy Bellows, because it’s much easier to get photos there than at Chateau Marmont or Soho House. So to a degree, there is a calculation of “am I going to get papped today”, because you have to account for things like maybe Brentwood Country Mart is your neighborhood market, but you know there are higher odds you’re picture will get taken there, or you have to go to the gym, dammit, and there’s nothing you can really do about it. At a certain point you just have to live your life and accept that sometimes, people are going to take your picture.

      That’s the key, though. Everyone knows where the paps are. I don’t think the Afflecks were calling them to set up photo ops, per se, but I think they went to places they knew would be occupied and allowed their pictures to be taken, knowing the publicity would be good for them. That’s where I have a problem, with people being willing to use the system one day and condemn it the next. If it’s that big of a deal to you, if you’re that concerned about your kids’ safety, then stay away from those pap-zones. It’s actually not that hard to avoid because they trawl pretty much the same spots every day. The whole “leave my kid alone” thing would mean a lot more to me if it came from a celebrity who was obviously not engaging with the system, someone who had taken the steps to secure privacy and still found they had a problem. But I think for most celebrities, including Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard, it’s about controlling every aspect of their celebrity, and the paps represent an element they can’t control.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        I hate to sound bitchy and ‘victim blaming’ in a way–but I highly doubt the paps are beating down Dax Shepherd and Kristen Bell’s door for pictures of their kid. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pap picture of them, or their kid. I only remember that they have a kid because they named her Lincoln–a cool name.

      • Algernon says:

        That’s the part that tickles my ire, too. Who gave two figs about them? Then they start this fake crusade and suddenly they’re everywhere, just as Bell has a movie to promote, too. Capital F Fishy. Capital C Convenient.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        You are spot on, Algernon, about it being common knowledge where some paps are and that sometimes people just have to live their lives and accept it.

        I do think that with the Afflecks, though, that the Brentwood Country Mart is near their home. Brentwood does have a small neighborhood-y vibe to it, and I think it is kind of absurd to expect people to go underground and switch cars just to go get some eggs and a carton of milk (not that that is your position). I agree with Lucinda that the Oscar season rush was probably more about increased demand, than increased visits to the local grocery store.

      • MrsBPitt says:

        Jennifer Garner said, that the paps sit outside their house EVERYDAY…so wtf are they supposed to do…never let their kids out of the house???

      • mercy says:

        Good points, but we live in a day and age when even the most minor celebrities get papped, and sometimes even tailed by paps if there’s a marriage or new baby, so I can believe the Afflecks and other couples are stalked. Are they above giving the paps a few shots to get them off their backs, or trying to use the situation to their advantage when they have something to promote or a tabloid story to dispel? Probably not. But in the case of the Afflecks, I don’t think it’s something they do on a regular basis or entirely of their own making. The only real solution for them would probably be to move, or travel with security.

        I don’t have a problem with anyone wanting control over their lives, and over what and with whom they share. It is pretty ridiculous when people who’s sole reason for being in the public eye is exploiting their personal lives complain about lack of privacy, like a Kardashian. But even in those cases, I don’t think their kids deserve to be stalked. No kids do, and I think that’s getting lost in the debate.

    • Lucinda says:

      You make a great point about the Afflecks. I have often wondered if the increase in pictures is due to more interest rather than calling the paps.

  6. Anon says:

    Now I want to know which pap agency will comment on the celebs that call them daily for there daily photo shoot.. With child or not. That would be awesome..i think a couple that just signed on to this no policy should and will be are quite hypocritical.

    I love the instagram personal photos as the babies are in there natural home enviroment and its just like any other proud parent that has control of what we see. At some point the child will have move control even with parents on what they want shown.

    Lets see which agency comes forward with who calls them then crys foul

    • mercy says:

      Paps in Vancouver, like Lainey’s friends at Punkd Images, are always bitching about the celebs who don’t cooperate with them and are full of praise for those who do, so that might be one indicator. I’m going to assume any pics of kids I see on Just Jared from now on are authorised by their parents, since he has vowed to discontinue using “unauthorised” pap shots.

  7. Kiddo says:

    Should I feel any shame that I had, and still have, no idea who Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell are? That I won’t take it upon myself to find out? Am I horrible in that my happiness derived by this agreement is in the fact that I may see less of them going forward?

    As an aside, the celebrity children pap shots were never a draw for me in the first place.

  8. Anon says:

    I think it is telling about both ‘People’ and Just Jared that until they recently pulled it…Jared…that they had a celebrity babies set-up, show-casing and basically ranking the popularity. As you can see by the pictures of baby North on the daily mail in the UK, they have no such policy.
    I can hardly wait for Kate Coyne at ‘People’ to face the back-lash when she pulls in yet another Gosselin cover and story.

  9. gunnys girl says:

    Selling baby pictures to a magazine is in poor taste – even if you are supposedly giving part of the money to charity. It’s just tacky.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I can see why a parent would do it though. It’s one thing if you’re someone who HAS to call the paps wherever you go, otherwise they won’t go looking for you as hard–but if you’re really, really famous, and the right pap catches you, then they can sell that pic for a ton of money.

      Like I read that with Halle Berry, when Nahla was born–she was covering Nahla up whenever she went out, so the paps couldn’t get the picture–which caused the paps to get even more aggressive. So after a while, she just took the covering off of Nahla and let them take the picture. I would rather control where the money goes, if I have no choice.

      Also–I’ve seen a few pap videos. I saw this one where Dave Chapelle asked them the difference between paps. And they said that the more aggressive paps are the freelancers, who don’t make a base pay–they’re the ones that are going to run you down, or try to provoke a response out of you.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Virgilia Coriolanus, who wrote: “Like I read that with Halle Berry, when Nahla was born–she was covering Nahla up whenever she went out, so the paps couldn’t get the picture–which caused the paps to get even more aggressive. So after a while, she just took the covering off of Nahla and let them take the picture. I would rather control where the money goes, if I have no choice.”

        A photographer actually broke onto her property and took a photo of baby Nahla in the backyard with Halle and her Mom. When Halle saw the picture she realized the only way someone could have taken it was if they were on her property. It scared her into letting the Paps photograph Nahla when she was out with her. And I think she filled suit against the photographer as well.

      • Jen says:

        Something similar happened after Brad and Angelina had their twins. Some photographer in camo and tons of cameras with long lenses was arrested on their French estate crawling through the bushes trying for a shot. They have endured helicopters flying over their property or following them (like in Australia) and it has to be a bit freaky. I think Halle finally gave in and took Nahla to some amusement park and all the photogs were there for the shots. I also think that other tabloids will continue to pay big bucks for celebrity children photos and just because People is not going to run them, does not mean that others won’t. Until regular folks stop buying the magazines or frequenting the blogs that cater to celebrity children, nothing is going to really change.

    • The Original G says:

      I think many celebs struck a deal to provide some official child photos in exchange for being left alone after that. It’s a negotiation.

      Then, to circumvent the perception that this was a profit making enterprise, some parents like the JPs donated the money.

  10. dizzylucy says:

    I think any small step is a good one, but other publications are still going to buy the stalkerazzi photos.
    I like them calling out the celebs who want it both ways, and given how publicist driven People is, I already assumed most of the pics in it were OK’d by the parents. Clearly all the covers are.

    • Sophie says:

      Yes, they are calling the celebrities out, but… What about those lines: ” But we have no interest in running kids’ photos taken under duress. Of course, there may be rare exceptions based on the newsworthiness of photos.”? Doesn’t that basically negate everything else, since they only have to say a picture was newsworthy enough?

  11. Bridget says:

    It bugs me that Bell and Shepherd are calling this a ‘win’.

  12. booger says:

    Dax Shepard made a good point when he said that celebs calling paps to take pics of their kids shouldn’t be supported anyway.

  13. toto says:

    Matthew McConaughey is copying Ben Affleck , now every day we see him out with kids . simply everyday just for Oscar sake

    • Jen says:

      Last year, the excuse for Affleck was that he was just taking his children to school. So, since we don’t see them much this year, I take it they all graduated or are now home schooled and he no longer needs to take them. Or everyday activities at the grocery store or farmer’s market..so they don’t eat this year? He was blatant last year and so is Mr. Mc this year.

      • Candy love says:

        Someone mentioned this on another blog last week. It seemed about a week before Christmas their kids stop being photograph and their son was only photograph twice in January. Their were not farmers market trips, Starbucks runs, school pick up photos, shopping trips or kids activities photos. Now they are being photograph weekly again.

        Which to me proved that they can keep their kids from being photograph for the most part. I don’t think every time we see a photo of a celebrity with their kid it’s a
        Photo op but when it becomes a weekly or daily thing then I start to question it. Especially when you live in some area for years you know what places to go and not to go .

      • Kim1 says:

        I see pics of the Garner Afleck kids at least 3-4 times a week every week regardless of the season on baby blogs.That is a myth that they are seen more during Oscar season.Maybe general gossip sites buy more of the pics.But baby sites buy the pics several times a week.Same goes for Liev and Naomi’s boys,Rossdale boys.Funny I never hear people accusing them of pimping their kids.

      • Amber says:

        I agree @Kim1. I don’t know where other CB’ers see this stuff, to say that they DON’T see certain celebs. And I’m not looking at baby sites, I’m talking about the Daily Fail alone. There is no difference in the coverage of the Afflecks and Stefani. Neither one’s photos seem set up at all to me, and they are consistent. When Watts and Liev are in NYC, it’s the same story for them. Hilary Duff is in the Mail multiple times a week. (I have no doubts about her calling the paps though. Cuz who cares? And she wasn’t on that radar until she began promoting her pregnancy on social media. For me, she was obviously trying to get some limelight attention.) The coverage of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s death has illustrated that there were many paparazzi photos of him and his family in stock. But I guess they weren’t top sellers, so you rarely saw them. I’ve seen photos of ALL the celebs others point to as examples saying, “You don’t ever see so and so”. I’ve seen plenty of pics of Bale, Matt Damon, RDJ or whoever. Not often, but you do see them. Celebs who work constantly aren’t easy pap targets anyway. Sometimes those gaps in coverage are due to work. But you can see nearly weekly articles about Hugh Jackman’s NY-based family. Sometimes Jackman’s not even present. Sarah Jessica Parker must be one of the most photographed women in the world. Just b/c People mag., CB, or wherever, aren’t purchasing and publishing the photos doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It’s a complete myth that coverage of Garner/Affleck picked up for the Oscars and dramatically eased up afterward. There has never been a moment in the last 15 years when Ben wasn’t in the limelight. He and Garner have always been pap targets and it never stops, increases or decreases. Now people are putting McConaughey on the list. Again, maybe he wasn’t on your radar. But the man and his family are regulars in the 24/7, online, tabloid cycle. Now is no different.

  14. Tiffany says:

    To be honest, was there really a demand for photos of Kristen and Dax’ s kid. It seemed so out of left field when I saw them talking about it.

  15. Hiddles forever says:

    Omg Remora is ruined. She won’t be able to call the paps anymore…..

  16. Karen says:

    WTF is MIranda Kerr going to do with her life? We need a list of people who probably hate this haha. I agree with Jessica Alba to a lesser degree. Looks like there will be no photo ops with Amber Heard and her future step daughter.

  17. TC says:

    I guess it kinda sucks to have Kristen Bell and Dax Sheppard’s level of fame. Hollywood, like any other place, is a hierarchy after all. The more famous the celebrity (like Brad and Angie) the easier it is for them to “go underground” when they need to, given their money and the resources. Kristen and Dax can’t do this, so they’re relegated to the omnipresent paparazzi at the grocery store, gas station, etc. The smaller the star, the more pictures we see of their kids. In a way, it’s an unrelenting situation for Kristen and Dax, so I can empathize.

  18. original kay says:

    when I think of intrusive pictures I think of Suri.
    They had photos of her in gymnastics class, taken through windows. it was pretty awful.

    that kid looks like she hates it, and they yell at her and didn’t a pap call her a bitch once??

  19. Jayna says:

    I did like it when the pap shot of Russell Crowe, when he was out with his kids walking, and lives on the same block as Charlotte Dawson, who is a longtime friend, when he was told by a close friend of Charlotte’s that she died and he broke down on the street that his children’s faces were blurred. That was a private moment that, honestly, I felt bad we witnessed of Russell’s grief but at least his children weren’t exploited by paps like would have been over here.

  20. CF98 says:

    It sounds like they don’t want paps that lurk in the bushes taking pics of kids more than the pics that celebs agree to.

    Its really about control more than invasion of privacy with this one.

    • Kiddo says:

      Not defending them (paps), but in reality, those who stand back, with a long lens, are less intrusive, less threatening and are not violating people’s personal space. Technically, legally, a photographer doesn’t need a release for public space. They could have always just blurred the kids’ faces out on publication. That would have been a more decent approach.

  21. Hautie says:

    This is not going to change much. Because lets be honest, most of those “random” street pap shots in LA, are a set up. The stuff in NYC seems more of a pap-stalker issue to me.

    If you want to know who calls the paps, look at the Daily Mail. I swear the same 6 actress, in LA, are out at least 4 days a week just to get those photo’s done. And sold.

    Look at Reese Witherspoon. She suddenly all smiles and constantly pap’ since she had her very public, messy drunk moment. All dressed up in the latest good girl fashions… carrying a new designer purse. She has been doing damage control for months now. Look at how many times, she manage to get photograph with that sweet face baby of hers. Please. Reese is setting those “candid” moments up.

    It has been a PR tactic, for decades. Happy family pictures, sell an image. Sells a movie. Helps land a new contract. Erasers bad behavior. Or boost your chances at that Oscar. :)

    And remember, one of the very best at selling her “happy adopted family” in photo’s… was Joan Crawford.

    • lemon says:

      Reese has a couple of adorable sets of photos on People.com that were posted after Josh took over. Holding hands with her kids and smiling as she walks down the street and some carrying her baby. All with complementary copy about “doing it all” and being a down-to-earth Mom JUST LIKE US. Totally staged. Totally fake.

  22. olivia says:

    Brad and Angelina built a huge part of their brand around pimping out their kids. And I doubt they’ll let something like this get in the way of continuing with that.

    • WTF says:

      Olivia, you have some issues. The crap (and I mean crap) you post daily about the Jolie-Pitts is laughable.

    • Sal says:

      I feel so sorry for you, its clear you’re hurting. And so so incredibly jealous. You’re pathetic.

    • lisa2 says:

      They didn’t have to pimp kids. People like you are glued to anything and everything related to them. They are huge stars. People wanted to see the family they build together. Especially since Brad was so vocal about having children and being a father. HE IS BRAD PITT. She is ANGELINA JOLIE. interest is there. They don’t have to do anything to create it..

      your comment shows the obsession of the people that claim such dislike. Now what are you going to do when the pictures are not there to accuse them of everything under the sun..

      • Ferris says:

        I did see a movie one time about the paparazzi (forgot the name of it but it had stars in it like Sarah Jessica Parker, Jlo and Jennifer Aniston discussing the paparazzi) and a photographer said that Angelia was a master of the staged photos. That photo of her and Brad playing on the beach with Maddox was staged.

        I was really surprised to hear that because out of all the celebrities Angelia and Brad seem to do a good job of keeping their kids from being photographed.

      • Sal says:

        Yeah right, Ferris, that photographer is obvious full of it, I wouldn’t believe that, (especially since Aniston was one of the celebs in it) many others have said the exact opposite. And of course that photo was staged, it was a promo for Mr & Mrs Smith. It was a photoshoot for work.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        @Ferris
        Was it $ellebrity??? Or something like that….

        Which beach photos were staged? The ones in Kenya? If they were staged, I would’ve thought that the paps would’ve stayed to get better shots than two adults playing with a toddler in the sand.

        The story I always heard was that *someone* saw Brad Pitt get off his plane (I think he flew in commercial), called the local paps, who then followed him to where AJ and Maddox were, on the beach. And I also saw this pap video–the same one with Dave Chappelle where he asked about Brad and Angelina, and the paps said that was a once in a lifetime shot…

        If all the paps knew that was staged, I would’ve thought that’s what they would’ve told him, and to the tabloids, when the pictures came out.

        Here it is:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yILyCIZ4CTM
        Starts at 2:40

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Brad and Angelina did basically say ‘Take your picture now, and leave us alone’ and I know that they have both said that they use the paparazzi for causes that are important to them, because their privacy is gone, they want to use the attention–like back in 2007ish, she said that the paparazzi followed them to Pakistan or something, where the earthquake had happened, and that they were the first ones there–George Clooney brought it up in one of the Oscar Roundtable thingies.

        But then again, beyond Brad saying something about the paparazzi hunting them down, when a reporter compared him/his family to Jessie James, when he did The Assassination of Jessie James by the coward Robert Ford…….other than that, they don’t complain about the paps, and they don’t really talk about them either.

      • Ferris says:

        VC, I can’t reply to your post for some reason. I believe that’s the name of the movie. It’s been a while since I have seen it.

        Here is the staged photo ( if I recall right) http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/flashback-see-brad-pitt-angelina-jolies-first-trip-as-a-couple-2012134.

        It was not that pap you posted that said the photos were staged.

        Maybe Angelia and Brad have staged photos before. I don’t know. Was just stating what was said in the movie not saying it’s the gospel truth.

        If they have staged photos before I wouldn’t think they are horrible people or anything. The press is going to write about celebrities truth or not so maybe celebrities stage photos to manipulate what is written. Get more positive and/or truthful things written

        Maybe Angelia and Brad did it a couple of times and didn’t like using their kid(s) in the manner and stopped. I’m not under the impression they stage photos now. Their kids seem to dislike the paparazzi and they are not photographed very often.

      • Maggie says:

        Actually Lisa you are glued to the Jolie Pitts. i dont come on here that often but every time i do ……there you are either salivating over them or defending them. Ppl have a right to their opinion even if it doesn’t jive with yours. That can be said about a few others on here as well.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        Eh, I would think that the photos WEREN’T staged because of the fact that those photos are used as the evidence of an affair between the two of them. I read the article–if they were hugging/massaging/kissing each other, why weren’t there any pictures???? Even then, Brad was separated…..

        I tend to think that the paps go after them, especially with their kids, because it was a huge thing–everyone was saying (the year that they got together) that Jennifer didn’t want kids, Angelina did–etc. So it was a huge thing–he adopted the two older kids that year, and announced that they were having a baby soon after. So, I think, even if they hadn’t talked about their kids in interviews, etc—they still would be a big target.

        Anyway, I don’t get why celebrities would even do a documentary like that. Honestly, I think that sort of thing, commenting on the paparazzi, commenting on tabloids stories–that fuels the fire. It is a non story if you ignore it. Is the documentary any good–it’s on netflix, I’ve passed it up quite a few times.

      • lisa2 says:

        You know what maggie… I said in my comment I am a JP fan.. I don’t hide it or apologize for it. But here’s the thing I dont’ know when you are posting. So perhaps you should stop tracking my movements. I post on this site when I can. I have a JOB.. a good one in fact. And there are plenty of time when I post rarely.. so maybe check yourself before you point fingers.. And here’s the thing when I comment on someone’s opinion… I’m stating MY OPINION.. you are free to skip my post any time babe.. and keep moving.. And there are many celebs here I don’t find interesting . So I don’t post on their thread.. the JPs.. YES I DO AND I WILL CONTINUE TO ALL THE TIME.

        oh and since I have a meeting now.. I won’t be back for about an hour to check in. Just making it easier for you to know when I’m going to be here.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Ferris, who wrote: “VC, I can’t reply to your post for some reason. I believe that’s the name of the movie. It’s been a while since I have seen it.

        Here is the staged photo ( if I recall right) http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/flashback-see-brad-pitt-angelina-jolies-first-trip-as-a-couple-2012134.

        It was not that pap you posted that said the photos were staged.”

        No where in the article you linked does it say the photo was staged. It looks like a photo with a telescopic lens as there is a slightly grainy element to it. The article also says the photo ‘was obtained exclusively’ for “US” magazine, which reads like they paid a photographer through the nose for it.

        If the Jolie-Pitts ‘had’ staged this photo “US” magazine would have claimed to have gotten the photo ‘from a source close to the couple.’

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Virgilia Coriolanus, who wrote: “Even then, Brad was separated…..”

        Jen had already filed for divorce when this picture was taken.

    • Lop says:

      Their kids are rarely seen. Weeks, even months have gone by with no pics. Most pics are at airports or getting in/out of a car. They do not take them to the pap filled markets or playgrounds to get papped everyday.

      • Marny says:

        Yeah, but there definitely seem to be an awful lot of photos of them coming out of toy stores from all over the world. Why r paparazzi hanging out in remote french villages? I don’t know how anyone can say they don’t get papped very often. They’re right up their with Suri, the Beckhams, Afflecks, Rossdale/Stefani’s, etc.

  23. Sam says:

    I wonder if stuff like this will lead the paps to just try to cut out the middle man. Kid pics sell because there’s a market for them – full stop. People want to see the baby and kid pictures. I wonder if stuff like this will just help cripple traditional print magazines and their websites. Most people now are going to places like X-17 or TMZ – which employ their own photogs. Basically, they’re cutting out the middle man. I think the presumption is that large magazines will cut demand if they refuse to carry the pics. However, couldn’t this also mean that other venues that simply don’t give a crap about privacy will step up to deal directly with the photogs? The issue isn’t magazines – it’s that magazines were just responding to demand, and that demand is not going down.

  24. Talie says:

    It was telling how practically no celebrities signed on to fight with Kristen and Dax.

  25. The Original G says:

    I applaud JJ for going with this and at least People is struggling with the issue.

    If celebs want to do an official portrait kind of thing. OK, there’s a place for that. That’s on them. But I really don’t want to see these kids going to school or the airport or ANYTHING like that.

    And I really don’t want to read any gossip blog comments from adults, side-eyeing, concern trolling or projecting their fantasies on these kids either.

  26. Zorbitor says:

    I find the decision process re: blurring faces fascinating

  27. Lol says:

    there is a lot of hate going around here. I mean, I’m pretty sure some parents stage photo-ops with their kids, but that doesn’t mean all celebrity parents do. Also, an increase in photos when the celebrity parent has to promote a movie, campaining for an award etc doesn’t necessarily mean they stage the photo-ops, an increase in photos is just as likely to be because there is more interest in the photos. We have no idea how many photos are taken of celebrity kids at any given time, because we only get to see the ones that sell. At some times photos sell better/ for a higher price, depending what else is going on in the celebrity world.
    Also, quite honestly I get where KB is coming from with the #pedorazzi tag. If it were “normal” families being followed around, we’d treat this whole thing a lot differently. Just because the parents picked a career in the spotlight, doesn’t make it okay to follow them around in their private life (even if they, at one time called paps to do a photo-op. Giving consent once, doesn’t mean consenting always). Wasn’t there a paparazo taking pictures of PINK’s baby as she was changing the diaper? Like, a full picture where everything was visible? So not okay. There are plenty of these kinds of examples.

    • lisa2 says:

      Great comment.

      i think some celebs get it. They know that it is a part of the job. And in all honesty I enjoy looking at pics of kids. I like seeing how my favorite celebrity couples family are growing. No different than when my friends send me pics of their kids every Christmas or give me an update of the year. Celebrities are people. and yes they have the right to go out in the world with their children without being accused of pimping them ‘

      • The Original G says:

        The difference for me, is, that these kids in photos are then subjected to the comments section of gossip boards.

        There are some pretty hateful comments and some really innappropriate speculation about them. I can’t get with that. While I think that their parents have to deal with some of that as part of the business, their kids should not.

      • dizzylucy says:

        But I don’t think having your kids followed and photographed is part of the job, or at least it shouldn’t be. Forget the parents’ reputation – the kids should have the right to go out in the world and not be followed, yelled at, chased, etc, and should have a right to privacy until they’re old enough to decide if they want a public life. And the parents who do arrange photos and use their kids for publicity should be called out on it, because they are contributing to the problem.

        There’s such a huge difference between parents sending out Christmas pictures to family and friends, and young children being harassed and scared by paparazzi, put on magazine covers and websites, and becoming public figures before they can choose not to. HUGE difference.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “No different than when my friends send me pics of their kids every Christmas or give me an update of the year”

        But it IS different because when your friends send you pics, they are sending it to people who they know, the photos are taken by people that know the children, they are taken in a setting where the kids feel safe, and no one is going to sell them to predators.

  28. Bea says:

    Very business-savvy of low level celebrities to now deal with the paps directly to broker “authorized” pics of their kids – when you have no real career to speak of, the money has to come from somewhere.

    I wonder what percentage they will share with the paps?

    • mercy says:

      Maybe, but the interest has to be there to get the money, so if they can broker a deal there must’ve already been enough demand. If they were going to do it I doubt they’d use a pap. Not after taking such a strong stand against stalking kids. Maybe they’d use one of those photo agencies that doesn’t stalk celebs. If anyone should make money off of their lives, shouldn’t it be them and people they want to work with? Better than some stranger who gets paid to stalk with a camera, at least.

    • ivy says:

      @ Bea
      I read the norm is for celebs to split the profits from the shots 50/50 with the paps. If their agent organizes the deal they take a 10-15% slice from the top.

  29. Martyn says:

    Just because the parent is OK with the kid being exploited doesn’t mean the child should be exploited.

  30. Marty says:

    How is this a “win” though? It sounds like People is going to continue to do what they always did, with a few tiny tweaks.

    Good for Jess for pointing out where the problem really lies, the celebrities. As long as they want a certain type of family image put out there, these types of photos will continue to sell.

  31. Kiddo says:

    I think this agreement should include a clause that hereby prohibits giving attention to any celebrity spawn who are seeking fame entirely generated by nepotism. Ha, I’m kidding. No, not really.

  32. Louisa says:

    I just think it adds clarity. If a picture of a child is published then it should have been authorized either directly or by being published first in another publication or via social media. If they are attending an organised event e.g. premiere or sports event, then the event itself should have authorized photos of any children attending and that should be made clear to all involved. I know some celebs are hypocrites, but they will quickly show themselves up. At the moment many assume that all celebs are using their children and that is unfair. If they do take the kids to a pap hot spot, then the publishers still have the option of blocking out the kids and just showing the adults.

  33. don't kill me i'm french says:

    It’s simply : why are some A list able to avoid the release of their kids’ pics in some mainstream mags? On People.com in babies section,you will find NO pics of RDJ or Christian Bale’s kids.

  34. lunchcoma says:

    I think this is actually a pretty reasonable policy. Celebrities who do actually want privacy will be able to get it. LeeAnn Rimes can still send the paps a list of soccer game times and sign off on the pictures, or she can post pictures to Instagram. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner might have some tough choices to make, since they like to pretend to be pap-shy while still using their kids for publicity, but I’m somehow sure they’ll think of something. And if we’re worried about the welfare of the kids (which I think is ultimately more important than calling out their hypocritical parents), having an occasional picture posted on Twitter is probably a lot healthier for a child’s development than being dragged in front of a horde of photographers on a regular basis.

    • Sam says:

      I think the problem here is that most celebs who are down with candid shots of their kids don’t exactly want anyone to know about it. If the policy Dax Shephard and Kristen Bell want actually happens, readers will be able to easily identify the people who are doing pap strolls with their kids. Which will, of course, then invite presumptions of being a “famewhore” or “bad parent.” We now have an entire class of celebrity that is based off of their fame for having kids (would Jennifer Garner truly be as popular as she is right now if she didn’t have those kids? Would a lot of these people?). However, it’s still distasteful to come right out and say “Yes, I use my children to advance my career.” Which puts these people in a serious bind. Most celebs have tenuous relationships with the paps – they dislike them personally but they know they need them to keep their careers hot.

      I find that in general the amount of privacy you can command is proportional to your star power. RDJ doesn’t need to pimp his kid to be a big “name.” he’s got it on his own. As you descend down the A-list through B and C and D, the amount of kid pimping gets inversely higher. If Dax Shephard and Kristen Bell truly care more about privacy then advancing their careers, that’s a positive for them, and I applaud that stance (although I think they personally play fast and loose with this). However, if they are, then they are in a small minority, I think. Cynical, yes, but probably true. I don’t think their proposal is the arrangement most celebs prefer.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I agree that celebrities who want to trade on their children but not be public about it are going to end up in a bind. I’m just not sure that it’s a bad thing. I suspect this will pressure them to lean on their children a little less for career advancement, which I think is probably best for the kids in question. I wouldn’t mind seeing fewer kid pictures or having more kids have slightly more normal lives, even if their parents grumble about it a little. I also think that they’ll still find ways to get some pictures out there – posting kid pictures on social media is for the most part socially acceptable for a celebrity, and I think we’ll be seeing more than that. We’ll probably also be seeing more kid pictures included in authorized interviews.

    • Candy love says:

      I think you got it wrong their will still be pictures of celebrity kids just not on JJ or People just not with out the consent of the parent.

      US, OK, Popsugar, Dailymail, TMZ, x17 online, Life and Style , Celebrity Baby Scoop, Black celebrity kids and more will still buy pictures of celebrity kids with or with out the consent.

      Now if we see pictures on ether JJ or People then it will be known that the parent gave the consent.

  35. MynameisPeaches! says:

    This is not about privacy but about control. If you are happy for the paps to take photos of you one day and then the next day you our crying out for privacy it means that you want to control the image . Look at Alex Baldwin he gets upset when the paps take photos of his wife and young child but then happily poses with his family for People magazine. So when he is in control of the image that is put out there of his family he’s OK with that but crys privacy when the paps are the ones taking the image. Alex and many celebrities don’t care about privacy they care about their image and how they are perceived by the public. Jessica Alaba’s career is based on her being a mum and a fashion girl. Without the paps taking photos of her and her family how relevant would she be? When was the last time she was in a film?

    Celebrities want it both ways they need media attention to stay relevant. It’s through their relevancy that they get work but at the same time they want to control the agenda. So when they are selling something ( or in damage control mode) they are more than happy to share intimate details about their children and arrange pap photo ops, but get upset when people’s interests is perked.

    I’ve no sympathy for them. They are not babes in the woods but willing participants in this. They do exploit their children for publicity ( and their kids don’t have a say) even alisters like the Jolie PItts, the Windsors and the Beckhams. Let them carry on with their hypocrisy.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Is your named based off the Nina Simone song?? Four Women?

    • Lucky Charm says:

      I have to disagree with this comment “Look at Alex Baldwin he gets upset when the paps take photos of his wife and young child but then happily poses with his family for People magazine. So when he is in control of the image that is put out there of his family he’s OK with that but crys privacy when the paps are the ones taking the image. Alex and many celebrities don’t care about privacy they care about their image and how they are perceived by the public.”

      I would take my kids to the portrait studio for pictures, and allow them to have their school pictures taken, or just take cute candids, and then I would give copies of those pictures to family & friends. However, I would be PISSED OFF AND FURIOUS if someone was waiting outside my kids’ school, or hiding in the bushes to take pictures of my kids & I just doing normal everyday things. I don’t think that it’s hypocrital at all to want to control who, how, when and where pictures of their kids are taken. And doesn’t EVERY parent want to control, to some degree, the family image and how they are perceived in public?

      • gennline says:

        A lot of people don’t think that celebs should have any control over their lives at all.
        A lot of online sites want to use said celebs for hits and traffic, but let a celeb say anything real and they are condemmed as fame hungry.
        Online commenters say how much they hate certain celebs but know everthing about them and continue to go to sites about them.
        Every parent should have the right to say when their child is photographed, whether it is an formal or informal setting.

      • mercy says:

        Agreed! And I do find it ironic that some of the people who seem to be the most perturbed by this subject and quick to point out celebrity hypocrisy are also those who buy and profit off of pap pics, and the readers who support them. I admit there are celebrities who’s personal lives are of interest to me. I don’t want them to be stalked, but I wouldn’t mind seeing pics if they want to share them.

  36. janeFR says:

    I’m not as shocked as most of you are at the no paparazzi photo for children. I live in France where the law says non paparazzi photo at all. It does’t stop the press, even the gossip press from working. Far from it.
    It’s been said more than once, a lot of celebrities actually want to be photographed and arrange their sessions.
    Let’s just not lie about it, and do that openly. This way, every one is happy : those who do not want their children harassed by paparazzi (which I totally understand), who feel that their children have a right to do as any other kid and go to any farmer market they like, who do not fell like taking the plane like royalties,… will be protected. Those who wants to sell their image will still be able to do it.
    To my point of view, saying that you don’t want your children photographed without rules and control is not hypocrite, it’s responsible.

  37. shouldawouldacoulda says:

    It is pretty apparent to me, which “celebrities” are in cahoots with the photographers. I am sorry, but it is possible to live in LA and not be seen. How often do you see Matt Damon, Johnny Depp, the Goop”s kids photographed? It is rare and far between. Even in NYC, there are celebrities that I see rarely snapped including their kids. Even the Jolie Pitt crew can go seriously under the radar for months. I hate how people become some people have a life change and then all the sudden are on a high horse.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Johnny Depps’ daughter was photographed as she was going into school last week. Goop made news a few months ago when she was taped by paps cutting off a school bus on her scooter as she dropped her kids off at school.

      Both photographs were notable for some reason (Johnny looked like he had a p0t pipe in his hand, Gwen cutting off the bus). Why that matters is because we only became aware of the paparazzi at the schools on those days because something happened that made it “interesting”, so they were posted on TMZ etc. . Think of all the photos that are taken, think of all of the photographers that hang out by the school, think of how many days they are there when we dont become aware of it because the photos aren’t “news”. The paps are still there, everyday, stalking and taking pictures of kids even when nothing news worthy happens.

      • Lena says:

        +1 Well said. There is interest in the pictures of certain kids and that’s why you see more of them than others. Certain celebs are off working and you see less of their children when they are (except Jolie directing down under, her working made you see MORE of her kids). I think the hostility you feel on this site about this subject is because celeb kids are certain people’s celeb crack and it is being threatened to be cut off. I think the whole “celebs call the paps themselves” line is garbage. You know the paps would love to call them out now (and when the pap law was signed in Feb) & there is nothing but silence.

  38. Adrien says:

    If this trend continues, Jessica Alba, Miranda Kerr, Lee-anne Rimes will now pimp pets in lieu of kids. Pets are delightful and pap worthy. And it is OK to give them crazy names like Apple Martini, Bear, Ransom.

  39. Kim1 says:

    @Common Sense I saw a pic of Louis last week while at bossip.com.The pic was taken two weeks ago while they were shopping.I dont think she pimps him.My point was Jolie accused of pimping kids or Garner but not Bullock.I see Louis and Jackson Theron all the time onBlack baby sites.
    Double Standards?

  40. Jazz says:

    Whatever will Tori Spelling do now?!