Wedding, sure, but baby? No. I'm sure the paparazzi would eventually get pictures of the kiddo to sate people's curiosity, but I wouldn't have professional pictures done to sell to the highest bidder.
You already have a photographer at a wedding - why not sell the pictures and give the $$$ to a charity?
Hell no. My wedding was great - some friends and family only who stayed the whole day, no reception, not even an announcement in the paper. We both liked it like that.
no to both, if I was a celebrity I think I'd have enough money. As for going the Jolie/Pitt charity sale, it's still the same, selling images of your children, places them in the public eye and making their lives open to every moron with a camera.
I'd like to take the high road and say now. But, realistically, I'd sell the wedding photos. You never know how long celebrity will last, so earn the money while you can. I wouldn't sell photos of my baby, though. I would try to give my child as much of a private life as possible.
Wedding - no, for fear that putting them on the internet would result in them getting posted on awkwardfamilyphotos due the hillbilly nature of my Mom's side of the family.
Depends. If I were a successful celebrity, hell no to both. But if I were an assclown of a celebrity who fucked up my career due to poor life choices and needed the money, probably so to both.
Baby, hell no. Wedding, you bet. And then I'd donate the money to charity, like Brangelina (I know, people on here have a giant hate on for them, but you have to admit they give a LOT to charity, including all of their baby photos money).
I guess I would - I posted pictures to this website and I am not getting paid for them - so yeah I think I would for money, but not the baby pictures, they should be off limits!
No! Im very private about things like that. But then i guess if i were a celebrity i would be a completely different type of person... more open and attention-loving.. so who knows.
No! Im very private about things like that. But then i guess if i were a celebrity i would be a completely different type of person... more open and attention-loving.. so who knows.
I suppose it depended on how famous I was. I mean if I was Jolie famous and the paps would hunt me unrelentlously to get the first shot of my baby, I would sell them and donate the money to a children's cancer charity.
If I was, lets say, Maggie Gyllenhaal level of celeb, I would not.
Baby (yeah, right, at my age...), no. Wedding? Possibly, but then again that's only slightly more likely than me having a baby, so let's just chalk this up under the "when monkeys fly outta my ass" column, eh?
I'm private too, and I HATE kids being pimped out. BUT ---If I had actual fans who cared about my life, I would release a few pictures of my wedding. Like a 'thank you for caring, here's our wedding portrait.' Meh, it's good PR.
And of course I would release baby pictures, the more famous I am, the earlier. A pap competition could get someone killed. Especially in LA, man they are ruthless.
As far as keeping the money, it depends on my situation. Like if I were a 40-year old B-list actress on the downswing, my future could be very insecure. But if I had a strong career/big bank account, or had years of syndication residuals, of course I would give the money to charity.
The only celebrity pictures that really chap my ass are the EVERY DAY staged pap photos....LeAnn Rimes is the PERFECT example. NOBODY cares that much about what that bitch does, every hour, on the hour. And yet for 'some reason', the paps always know exactly where she is, and she's always so fresh. that stuff bothers me more than baby or wedding photos. I guess it's manufactured interest that bugs me--like with the KKKKKK's too.
depends. if i'm b list or higher, no. if i'm b- or below and need the dough to pay for my children, i'd be a total photo whore. i don't know how some of the lesser celebs pay for body guards/safety stuff. they have fame, but not $.
One or two wedding pics, yes. After the fact. Baby pics, yes, if offered millions. THe money wld all go to native american school ive been donating to for years
No and no. I dont feel the need to show off pictures of private events in my life, famous or not. This is why I got rid of facebook, people OVER share.
Humble small town me is going to say no to both, but I know that famous me would be whoring those puppies out EVERYWHERE for $$$$$$$$... thank god I will never be famous, I'd turn into the cartoon rat who plots to take over the world!
Why not? Can't ever have too much money and by selling them maybe the paps would back off from trying to get the first shot. If I was so rich that I didn't need the money, I'd give it to charity. Make those rag sheets work for it and pay for it.
If I were a celebrity....wouldn't it be because I was willing to sell every bit of me already???
So, yes and yes to both questions.
(and I guess would it be b/c I was a celebrity b/c I won a Pulitzer, or because I was in a hollyweird smash success, as my answer would only fit for me if the latter)
I guess I can't say for sure whether or not I would sell pictures of these life changing events, BUT knowing how I am now, I would say no. I rarely post pictures on facebook and am pretty private by nature.
Yes I would to both. Babies look like babies. In two weeks you cant even tell its the same kid. If I were a celebrity, my job would be whoring myself out for money. This would be no different. If I were a big time celebrity, I would donate the money because its a great PR move.
No. I think both of these are private affairs. Just like I can't stand when people do their engagements big and all over the place, like that couple on American Idol this year. It just takes away from the intimacy of the moment. Besides, do the tabs pay out big bucks for this stuff anymore?
I can't really answer b/c I can't wrap my brain around actually being a celebrity. Probably yes IF I could donate the money to charity, like others have said. Or if I had a website/blog. I'd don't really see the harm in a couple photos. Also, aren't the paparazzi more aggressive w/ the celebs who keep the kid hidden? Better to do it my way than for me being filmed having shove some DB pap out the way.
wedding - yes
ReplyDeletebaby - no
I would sell the photos, then use it to pay Drake and Chris Brown to beat the snot out of each other.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even going to post these things on the Internet if/when they happen! Too much oversharing is the bane of modern existence.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am a private person as it is. I rarely talk about my personal life to co-workers/acquaintances and certainly wouldn't share photos with anyone.
ReplyDeleteWedding - hell yeah
ReplyDeleteBaby - hellllllllll no
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnly if I was going to donate the money to charity. Otherwise it seems freakish and greedy to me.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteBaby no, I am sooo not into my children being displayed for celebrity. My wedding sure, but I would donate the proceeds to charity
ReplyDeleteNo and no. Kinda self-serving.
ReplyDeleteI would say no, but I would never want to be a celebrity either.
ReplyDeleteWedding, sure, but baby? No. I'm sure the paparazzi would eventually get pictures of the kiddo to sate people's curiosity, but I wouldn't have professional pictures done to sell to the highest bidder.
ReplyDeleteYou already have a photographer at a wedding - why not sell the pictures and give the $$$ to a charity?
Hell no. My wedding was great - some friends and family only who stayed the whole day, no reception, not even an announcement in the paper. We both liked it like that.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't want my kids anywhere near the paps.
no to both, if I was a celebrity I think I'd have enough money. As for going the Jolie/Pitt charity sale, it's still the same, selling images of your children, places them in the public eye and making their lives open to every moron with a camera.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to take the high road and say now. But, realistically, I'd sell the wedding photos. You never know how long celebrity will last, so earn the money while you can. I wouldn't sell photos of my baby, though. I would try to give my child as much of a private life as possible.
ReplyDeleteIf I got a ton of free stuff, a ton of money, exotic locale, designer gowns, shoes, jewels (and for the baby too) and final approval of all pictures.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I'd never be asked.
No........
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I can't say no when I haven't been there.
ReplyDeleteOf course I would sell the wedding photos. If the paparazzi are going to try and make money from me, I'd rather make it myself.
ReplyDeleteBaby - no.
Yes. It's taking the control away from the paps. I would use the money to help impoverished children.
ReplyDeleteWedding - no, for fear that putting them on the internet would result in them getting posted on awkwardfamilyphotos due the hillbilly nature of my Mom's side of the family.
ReplyDeleteBaby - no.
Depends. If I were a successful celebrity, hell no to both. But if I were an assclown of a celebrity who fucked up my career due to poor life choices and needed the money, probably so to both.
ReplyDeleteBaby, hell no. Wedding, you bet. And then I'd donate the money to charity, like Brangelina (I know, people on here have a giant hate on for them, but you have to admit they give a LOT to charity, including all of their baby photos money).
ReplyDeleteI guess I would - I posted pictures to this website and I am not getting paid for them - so yeah I think I would for money, but not the baby pictures, they should be off limits!
ReplyDeleteOnly wedding, and only if I donated the money to charity.
ReplyDeleteNo! Im very private about things like that. But then i guess if i were a celebrity i would be a completely different type of person... more open and attention-loving.. so who knows.
ReplyDeleteNo! Im very private about things like that. But then i guess if i were a celebrity i would be a completely different type of person... more open and attention-loving.. so who knows.
ReplyDeleteNeither, I'm very private about this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't snark on those who sell the pictures and give the money to charity. If you trouser the cash it's really tacky.
I suppose it depended on how famous I was. I mean if I was Jolie famous and the paps would hunt me unrelentlously to get the first shot of my baby, I would sell them and donate the money to a children's cancer charity.
ReplyDeleteIf I was, lets say, Maggie Gyllenhaal level of celeb, I would not.
Baby (yeah, right, at my age...), no. Wedding? Possibly, but then again that's only slightly more likely than me having a baby, so let's just chalk this up under the "when monkeys fly outta my ass" column, eh?
ReplyDeleteAngus- laughed out loud at your comment!!
ReplyDeleteWedding- probably not
Baby- no way- I like how Jon Bon Jovi tries to keep his kids away from the paps
I would sell my wedding, but never my baby.
ReplyDeletePhotos, that is.
ReplyDeleteI'm private too, and I HATE kids being pimped out.
ReplyDeleteBUT ---If I had actual fans who cared about my life, I would release a few pictures of my wedding. Like a 'thank you for caring, here's our wedding portrait.' Meh, it's good PR.
And of course I would release baby pictures, the more famous I am, the earlier. A pap competition could get someone killed. Especially in LA, man they are ruthless.
As far as keeping the money, it depends on my situation. Like if I were a 40-year old B-list actress on the downswing, my future could be very insecure. But if I had a strong career/big bank account, or had years of syndication residuals, of course I would give the money to charity.
The only celebrity pictures that really chap my ass are the EVERY DAY staged pap photos....LeAnn Rimes is the PERFECT example. NOBODY cares that much about what that bitch does, every hour, on the hour. And yet for 'some reason', the paps always know exactly where she is, and she's always so fresh. that stuff bothers me more than baby or wedding photos. I guess it's manufactured interest that bugs me--like with the KKKKKK's too.
only if i was giving birth on the moon,or having my wedding on the moon
ReplyDeletedepends. if i'm b list or higher, no. if i'm b- or below and need the dough to pay for my children, i'd be a total photo whore. i don't know how some of the lesser celebs pay for body guards/safety stuff. they have fame, but not $.
ReplyDeleteYes to both. I would sell for as much money as I could, and then give it all to charities.
ReplyDeleteOne or two wedding pics, yes. After the fact. Baby pics, yes, if offered millions. THe money wld all go to native american school ive been donating to for years
ReplyDeleteNo and no. I dont feel the need to show off pictures of private events in my life, famous or not. This is why I got rid of facebook, people OVER share.
ReplyDeleteHumble small town me is going to say no to both, but I know that famous me would be whoring those puppies out EVERYWHERE for $$$$$$$$... thank god I will never be famous, I'd turn into the cartoon rat who plots to take over the world!
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Can't ever have too much money and by selling them maybe the paps would back off from trying to get the first shot. If I was so rich that I didn't need the money, I'd give it to charity. Make those rag sheets work for it and pay for it.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a celebrity....wouldn't it be because I was willing to sell every bit of me already???
ReplyDeleteSo, yes and yes to both questions.
(and I guess would it be b/c I was a celebrity b/c I won a Pulitzer, or because I was in a hollyweird smash success, as my answer would only fit for me if the latter)
I guess I can't say for sure whether or not I would sell pictures of these life changing events, BUT knowing how I am now, I would say no. I rarely post pictures on facebook and am pretty private by nature.
ReplyDeleteNo, I would continue to overshare everything for free on Facebook! *L*
ReplyDeleteMost likely not. If I did the money would go to charity. Wedding the $$ most likely familiy of service men. Baby to March of Dimes.
ReplyDeleteYou lost me at, "if you were a celebrity."
ReplyDeleteI don't crave attention. Celebs do. Therefore, selling pixs of wedding, baby, funeral, bar mitzvah, dental work, rehab, pap smear doesn't surprise me.
Yes I would to both. Babies look like babies. In two weeks you cant even tell its the same kid.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a celebrity, my job would be whoring myself out for money. This would be no different. If I were a big time celebrity, I would donate the money because its a great PR move.
Wedding, sure, why not. Baby I'm not so sure, although it's not an instant no.
ReplyDelete(I'm neither married or a parent)
No. I think both of these are private affairs. Just like I can't stand when people do their engagements big and all over the place, like that couple on American Idol this year. It just takes away from the intimacy of the moment. Besides, do the tabs pay out big bucks for this stuff anymore?
ReplyDeleteIt would depend on my status, if I were A-List then I wouldn't but if I were D-list, then hell yeah! Or if I were broke and desperate.
ReplyDeleteI can't really answer b/c I can't wrap my brain around actually being a celebrity. Probably yes IF I could donate the money to charity, like others have said. Or if I had a website/blog. I'd don't really see the harm in a couple photos. Also, aren't the paparazzi more aggressive w/ the celebs who keep the kid hidden? Better to do it my way than for me being filmed having shove some DB pap out the way.
ReplyDelete