Several Media Outlets Amazingly Boycott Paparazzi Photos Of Celebrity Kids

2013 CMT Music Awards - Wonderwall Portrait StudioOn Friday, ET became the first media outlet to boycott photos of celebrity kids. Now, People and Just Jared are following suit. This is amazing – and also one of those things that is so obvious I wonder why it took so long.

Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard introduced the idea of putting a halt to media organizations publishing photos of celebrity children without their consent. They’ve been campaigning hard to make it happen – and as evidenced by the actions of ET, People and Just Jared – it’s working. In January, Bell and Shepard asked their fans to stop reading publications that use paparazzi photos of celebrity children. From Jezebel:

The couple has targeted People magazine specifically as a publication that could and should put this ban on “unauthorized” photos into effect. On Twitter, Bell said the couple has gone after People because “they’re better than their trashy weekly counterparts. they are a quality ent mag,” shewrote. “They often print REAL stories abt REAL ppl who actually deserve to be news. But they need a nudge in the right direction.” Bell also spoke withBuzzFeed about the issuecriticizedRadar Online for publishing photos of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s kids on the way to his funeral and railed against the E! network and other media outlets.

The couple has said they won’t do interviews with publications that don’t abide by their wishes. It’s a great idea – if celebrities begin refusing to give stories to these outlets, more may follow.

This is a mom site – of course we cover celebrity news. I have often wondered how famous parents deal with having people snap photos of their kids all day long. Frankly, I don’t understand how celebrities deal with having a camera shoved in their face all day, period – but thinking about what it would be like to have one pointed at my kids has always made me uncomfortable.

We live in a culture that consumes celebrity news. I admit I love seeing pictures of the offspring of celebrities and I’ve become so used to paparazzi images that I often ignore that the way the photos were captured. In reality, most of these images are probably really invasive and awful. It’s one thing to pose for a photo shoot or volunteer information about your family – quite another to have someone following you around, sneaking photos at every possible moment.

Good for Shepard and Bell for taking action – and for outlets that rely on paparazzi photos for a lot of their content to agree to stop using those types of photos of children. I admit I never thought about how easy it would be to not use those images. Honestly I’m not sure if I’ve ever even used them – but now that I realize it I won’t be pulling those photos for stories either.

(photo: Getty Images)

Share This Post:
    • elle

      Well….I’ll just say I’ll believe it when it actually happens.

    • Rachel Sea

      GOOD, paparazzo need to have less incentive to attack children, their own moral compasses being clearly too broken to make such a decision independently.

    • candyvines

      I know this is a really, really great thing, but I will feel empty inside if Suri’s Burn Book goes away.

    • whiteroses

      Their parents are famous. They are not.
      A pretty important distinction, imho. There is no reason why someone needs to take a photograph of a celebrity kid. None.

      • Angela

        Or at least the parents chose it. I mean Suri Cruise is inarguably famous but she never asked for it. And I would argue that even child actors and singers who are famous on their own should still be exempt. I just don’t think it’s in any child’s best interest to grow up stalked by photographers.

      • whiteroses

        I agree. I mean, look at the Gosselin kids, who in every single interview they’ve had since the show ended claim that they “miss” the cameras. Of course they do- they grew up with cameras in their face. That can’t be healthy.

        I have a hard enough time when people post photos of my son on Facebook without my permission. I can’t imagine how these parents must feel.

      • Angela

        True although in the Gosselins’ case it was a camera crew who was there with permission of their parents. I still would never have my child grow up on a reality show but it’s a really different situation. The crew probably at least treated the kids decently, didn’t chase them down or jump out at them from behind bushes, and most importantly left after the filming was done. I can’t imagine any celeb kid saying they miss being stalked by paparazzi.

      • whiteroses

        I agree completely. I would say that growing up with a camera constantly in your biz- with parent’s permission or not- can never be good.

    • jane

      I heart Kristin Bell SO HARD

      • JLH1986

        I haven’t crushed on a celebrity since grade school. But Damn if I don’t want to hang out with Kristen Bell.

      • whiteroses

        Did you see the EW cover for the Veronica Mars movie? OMG, I died.

    • Andy

      I totally agree with her about Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s kids-it was very disturbing to me that several media outlets published pictures taken of grieving children who were saying goodbye to their dad. And yes, just because the actors/actresses are famous, it doesn’t mean they forfeit the right to their kids’ privacy.

      • JLH1986

        The fact that PSH indicated in his will he didn’t want his kids anywhere near LA I think is proof that he wanted his kids to be left alone.

    • Crusty Socks

      Not having pictures of our children being published by the media… now that’s something us regular folks can relate to!

      • Valerie

        What do you mean? I have to avoid the photographers outside pretty much everywhere I go.

    • Jill

      In the same vein though, celebrities need to STOP taking multi-million dollar contracts from magazines to feature the exclusive (and elusive) “first” pictures of their kids. I think Bell and Shepherd have honest intentions here but I think some celebrities get upset when the photogs capture and sell shots of their kids and because the celebs miss the chance to make the money off the pictures-not because their child’s privacy is being invaded.

      • JLH1986

        As the parent that’s their prerogative. But this stalking the kids on the way to school, the pap who called Suri a bitch because she wasn’t having him in her face? that’s not ok. No matter the reason why a parent agrees to have the photos taken, it’s usually in a safe calm quiet environment. Chasing a kid into their school 8 million photos of the kid (with the nanny) getting into the car to go home…that’s not ok.

      • Angela

        I agree. If the magazine doesn’t want to pay an exorbitant amount no one is forcing them to. Plus I’ve actually heard celebs say that while they would have preferred not to sell their photos that the paparazzi were harassing them so much and creating unsafe situations in a race to get that first shot so they basically did it to get them off their backs.

      • Jill

        If you want to get them off your back why not be like Channing Tatum & Jenna Dewan or Beyonce & Jay-Z-share those first pics free of charge on social media? Don’t take or let anyone else make money of those pictures? There are other options……

      • Angela

        If they opt to do that fine. Also fine if like P!NK and other celebs if they decide to take that money and donate it to charity (or toward lobbying for paparazzi restrictions). Or it may go into a trust for the child. But if the images are published then someone is still profiting off them. The magazine is. And by not charging for the photos the magazine profits more. Some celebs feel that by driving up the price (thereby decreasing the profit margin) then they have less incentive to publish so many of photos of children to begin with. And yes, some parents probably just do want to make a buck. Truth be known that if I was offered that kind of money to publish my kid’s baby photos then I’d do it in a heartbeat. Yes, the celebs probably need the money a lot less than I only worry about exploitation if they disregarding their child’s welfare for personal gain. If they are making a decision that they genuinely feel is best for their child (getting the paparazzi off their back and gaining more control over the photos that are released) and happen to make a profit from it I don’t see it as a problem.

      • Jill

        I agree that photogs shouldn’t stalk the kids. I agree that no one should call a child a “bitch” because they don’t want their photo taken. All I am saying is that taking money for your kids pictures is exploiting them as individuals for your personal gain as parents-just like photogs snapping pictures and selling them to magazines is explotation.

      • SA

        I do know that at least Brad & Angelina donate their first-baby picture money to charities that benefit children.

      • Jill
    • Pingback: It Ends Tonight… | Nemo Sibi Nascitur