How much is that paparazzi baby photo worth?

Naomi Watts, Liev Schreiber, and a then 2 week-old Alexander Pete out on 8/10/07. Naomi let the paparazzi get the first photos of Alexander after he was born. Credit: Fame Pictures. Their friends Sacha Baron Cohen and Isla Fischer also took this same tactic with their newborn.
The gossip world was waiting for the unveiling of the Jolie-Pitt twins this Sunday, which got me thinking about what a paparazzi picture of a celebrity baby might be worth. Turns out, about $5 million. No wonder that paparazzo risked jail to get the first picture of Halle Berry’s daughter.

A PAPARAZZO competing for the first shot of Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban’s baby says the image would be worth up to $5 million.

“A picture like that would be worth four or five million around the world, if you got a nice picture of the baby’s face,” said photographer Peter Carrette, one of the many clamouring to get shots of Kidman when she returns to Sydney with Sunday Rose this weekend.

Kidman is due home to reshoot scenes for Baz Luhrmann’s Australia. Because she is expected to be bringing Sunday Rose to Australia for the first time, teams of photographers have been camped out at Sydney’s private jet base for at least three days.

“I don’t think she wants us to get a picture,” Carrette said. “If they had any sense they’d have a picture taken of her and Keith with the baby … release it and give all the proceeds to the [Sydney] Children’s Hospital at Randwick.”

Carette adds that Nicole could try Cate Blanchett’s strategy.

“Cate did the smart thing – I mean Cate produced her baby [newborn Ignatius] at Parliament House two days after it was born in front of all the international media, for nothing,” he said. “Nobody has doorstepped Cate since – why would you?”

Sydney Morning Herald

I had thought that Nicole Kidman might have released a baby picture for free, as she did of her wedding photos, but not yet! Maybe she’s waiting for the baby to get a little cuter – am I alone in thinking that newborn babies aren’t very pretty? I got into a lot of trouble with family members when I told them that ‘she’s small and red and ugly’ when my last daughter was born.

I know a lot of people have an opinion about pimping out your babies, but I think I’d rather see the money go into the child’s trust fund or to charity than to the paparazzi. Nicole is obviously going to some effort to keep her baby under wraps, so the pap that secures this deal is likely to be invading her privacy.

As Carette says, releasing your baby pictures stopped Cate Blanchett from getting door stopped, Unfortunately I don’t think this tactic will work for the Brangelina Camp, but it might just work for Nicole Kidman.

The article also says that Australian magazine New Idea paid $AUD 750,000 for the pictures of Viv and Knox Jolie-Pitt, so this probably means that while Hello and People have paid the majority of the $15 mil for the baby pictures, smaller magazines have also paid money for the pictures too, adding up the final total.

Another photo of a two week-old Alexander Pete Schreiber on 8/10/07. Credit: Fame.

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

20 Responses to “How much is that paparazzi baby photo worth?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. geronimo says:

    Aw, so cute, that permanently worried look all newborns seem to have.

    Definitely the way to go for celebs, get it over and out of the way and then get on with their lives. If there’s no money involved at all, even better.

  2. Alexis says:

    Oh goodness! What a cutie. It looks like he’s gunna have red hair (poor guy).

  3. Syko says:

    There’s that much money in being a pap?

    *sticking small cheap digital camera in handbag in order to be ready in case someone famous shows up here with a baby*

  4. what says:

    i think its disgusting to sell your kids pictures thats just asking for trouble

    look at those media whores angelina jolie and brad pitt i think thats the only reason they have all those kids because it keeps them in the spotlight.

  5. vdantev says:

    How much is that paparazzi baby photo worth? Hopefully a vigorous ass-kicking by a pissed off parent and a lawsuit.

  6. Kaiser says:

    Alex is such a cutie – and he’s gotten gigantic. Looks just like Liev.

    Yeah, blah blah “media whores” … would rather the money go to charity. It’s pragmatism, not pimping.

  7. vdantev says:

    look at those media whores angelina jolie and brad pitt i think thats the only reason they have all those kids because it keeps them in the spotlight.

    Money goes to charity, so get bent ya jerk.

  8. elisha says:

    I hate to hop on the Brangelina-are-sucky-publicity-whores-train… but seriously. They could totally give that sh*t up for free and make a good point while doing so. I don’t care if they’re “giving the money to charity”… because it makes it seem almost MORE like they’re doing it for publicity. Like “OOH, I wonder how much our babies can get?!” After reading this about Naomi and Cate, they have no excuses.

    If their excuse is that they’re more famous and their baby photos are more sought, that’s total BS. The more you hide those babies, the more the paps will try to get pics because the photos are RARE.

  9. blaugrau says:

    This tactic won’t work for Brangelina, because they have created their own circus, they are the ones who keep people waiting for more. If you make a photoshot with your child for a magazine, people get familiar with your family (sorry for the redundancy) and they will want more: their first tooth, their first steps… And even worse, they think they have the right to do so, because you’ve already shared very privat moments at your home. If you want intimacy for your baby, keep them away from the gossip magazines. Period.
    And don’t use the charity as excuse, I think Brad and Angelina earn enough money together to give this amount to charity from their own pockets.

  10. daisy424 says:

    He is a cutie!

  11. kelly says:

    pimping is pimping doesn’t matter where the money goes, just like doing a porn movie and giving the proceeds to charity does not make it less of a porn movie. if you sell pictures of your kids, you exponse them to the media who start hounding them believing that they are for sale.

  12. heyo says:

    hey kelly.. yeah u r totally right.. pimping is pimping! i totally don’t understand the idea of selling baby photos for charity. Since it works so well.. perhaps we dont need ordinary people workin so hard to raise money for the poor. Just get these celebrities to produce a couple of kids every now and then. Sighs.. life is so unfair..

  13. vdantev says:

    Kelly if the real world we live in is ever as f*cked up as you see it, I’ll slit my wrists.

    Comparing selling baby pictures for charity to making a dirty movie. Issues much ? Would you like to point to the place on the doll where the bad man touched you during the picnic?

  14. Anastasia says:

    Kelly/Lola/whatever other handle you’re going by:

    get therapy. Seriously.

  15. A.J. says:

    There is a definite distinction between selling your children’s photos for a charitable cause and “whoring” them out.

    The Jolie-Pitts are the most obvious example of handing the insane amount of money over to a good cause. And while I’m neither a lover nor a hater of them, I say more power to them for trying to make a difference in the world.

    On the other hand, there are people like Larry Birkhead. Remember a year or so ago when he was incessantly pimping out little Dannilynn? I highly doubt any of that cash made it much further than his checking account. Way to exploit your child for a fistful of cash.

  16. Izzy says:

    Gah, I just want to cuddle their baby, he is SO adorable! oh my god… one of the cutest babies I’ve ever seen!

    Haha, but he looks a little similar to Ron Howard.

  17. Victoria says:

    Oh, what a beautiful baby! I think if your money is going to charity like the Jolie-pitts, then it is worth it. People magazine I heard did not even write the check to them, but to their charities. ( no tax )? Pictures will get taken no matter what, so why not take the money and give it to other children in poor countries and other organizations that they themselves are trying to help. There is nothing wrong with that. Halle really went over the edge with hers, BUT that is her right. She is not ready to have her daughter out in the paparazzi world, and it sounds like the Kidman-Urban’s are not either.

  18. chartreuseoak says:

    Yeah I agree most newborns are physically ugly.

  19. czarina says:

    Gotta tell all you high-principled people that if someone offered me millions (or, let’s be honest, even hundreds) of dollars to put my kids’ pictures on the cover of their magazine, I’d do it in a second!
    My children are beautiful (if I do say so myself!), why not let the world enjoy them??
    Would I consider it “whoring” them to the media? No. Jeez, its only a few (nice, tasteful) pictures, not a movie of the week! I have to admit I’d be very proud to see them on a magazine cover.
    The fact that mags are offering B&A ridiculous amounts of money is the fault of the magazines–it’s not as if the couple were holding an auction for the highest bidder. (in fact, I strongly doubt People or Hello! paid as much as eveyone is saying…I think the price has been totally inflated to make it sound like more of an “event”)

  20. enchantress says:

    Babies are beautiful! 😀 😀 😀