What Do You Think?
David and Victoria Beckham released photos of their new daughter on their respective social networking pages. On the one hand I am very happy they decided to not exploit their child for money. On the other hand, I also think they could have raised a whole lot of money for charity by selling first photos of H7 as I like to call her. "H7." "You just sunk my battleship." Anyway, I think they could have received millions of dollars for the photos they gave away for free. What do you think? Is your happiness they did not exploit their child for money better than doing so for charity?
35 comments:
So, damned if they do and damned if they don't?
I'm torn on that one, I missed the days when no celebrity children were ever seen for fear of kidnappings but then again I agree with you, if you are going to do it, make some money and donate it all to a worthy cause, especially in this case where the Beckhams are far from hurting for $$
I think its nice that they did this. There are tons of ways they can make money for charity. This is a great move- making them look like just any other parents and NOT using their daughter as a bargaining chip.
Their kid, their decision. I agree with Patty; damned if they do/don't.
Clearly, they can't win on this one.
I don't think there's anything wrong with what they did, and they shouldn't have to bow to pressure.
Jen, you literally took the words right out of my mouth! she is a pretty little baby, though!
It's up to them. Cute baby...
I just find it unbelievable how a picture of a tiny, wrinkled, wordless, completely unendangered creature could sell for THAT much money.
I could see it with Shiloh or Suri -- Angelina and Katie were first-time biological mothers involved in fairly-new, high-profile relationships. But this is Victoria's FOURTH child with David. Not that I wish any ill will on that baby whatsoever, but who CARES?
Cute baby, though. Then again, most are -- famous or not.
Raising money for charities is a good thing & what-not, but baby-making and baby-pimping is a personal choice. I think they did the right thing.
I like and applaud them for not selling the photos. Celebrities like them can raise money for charity in dozens of other ways that don't involve exploiting their kids' photos.
I don't think they should feel pressured to use their child to cure disease or poverty.
We really have no way of knowing how much celebrities donate to various causes, unless it's published info. It's not really anyone's place to demand how they donate or release their children's photos.
While I think it's nice that Angelina/Brad (& various other celebs) choose to do the photos to be able to use the profits for charity, that doesn't mean I think everyone should follow in their footsteps.
What Ida said.
I loves my celeb gossip, but for some reason, baby pictures don't interest me AT ALL.
Patty beat me to it - they can't win on this one. I for one like the Beckhams. They seem to really enjoy their family rather than seeing the children as props.
when celebrities sell their baby photos to a magazine for millions, even if it does go to charity, it would seem it would make the paparazzi more determined to get more pictures of the kid and to invade their privacy. the celeb. parents have kind of created a money monster.
posting it on their own seems to be a way to control the image and the paparazzi. and, someone from the hospital might also have taken a photo and sold it had they not done this.
so, it seems like a good way to control all of the crazies.
Patty's comment says it all.
Their choice. Not anybody's business.
I think it's great. The Beckhams probably give more to charity every year than I'll make in a lifetime, so who am I to say anything about it?
David makes like 65 million a year, and it's just been reported in the last week or so, Victoria has a PURSE collection worth over a million.
I don't think they need to sell baby pictures in order to write a big check to charity.
Leave them alone, and let them enjoy their new baby. They seem thrilled, as they should be. I'm sure they do plenty for charity that doesn't include pimping out Harper.
Love these pictures. Glad they went this way.
@Ida, it's their first girl.
I, for one, am glad they didn't sell out. Definitely a cute baby though.
Gorgeous pics. God bless that baby.
Oh, Enty. Just because they posted their pics on Facebook like the rest of us mere mortals does not mean they're not giving people. They probably give billions to charity each year, which sure beats my canned goods to the church and boxed up goodies for Goodwill, so who are we to judge?
And really, the whole selling pics to People and then handing the paycheck over to charity and then letting the whole world know via publicist/press release/your people just seems so contrived. I'm not a fan of giving to charity and then bragging about giving to charity.
@Cindy -- I KNOW, but this baby doesn't look all that different from the other three! Nor does she look that different from every OTHER Caucasian baby out there.
Those shots just look so PERsonal. I'm not blaming them -- but I still think it's odd that the desire to see photos like this even exists in the first place. They should be able to just enjoy their daughter for a while without the pressure of sharing her.
After reading that he was weaving in and out of traffic and going upwards of 85 mph on the freeway here in LA a few months ago WITH HIS SON IN THE CAR, I couldn't care any less about this couple. If he was on the way to his kids birth, then fine, but he wasn't, so there's no excuse for that bullshit.
Maybe they aren't as full of themselves as we like to think, and feel just like anyone who's just had a baby and post some pictures in their Facebook feeds for their family and friends to see. And also, all their fans. *L*
I think the FB posts keep them real, stuff that we would do. I think it was lovely gesture and they are really damned no matter what they do. I would love to see a color photo of the whole family later on. Let them enjoy what is probably their last newborn together. You cannot ever get these moments back. Did you see the photo of his white and pink shoes with all of the children's names on them from the weekend? So sweet! : )
It's still exploiting the child for money,EVEN IF that money goes to charity. An exchange of money still constitutes a sale in my eyes.
I think they did what most non-celebrity parents would have done.
I agree MAC.
I think it's disgusting to sell pictures of your kids for any reason.
I think it's sweet that they posted pictures on their SN's - like any other normal parents.
They have plenty of money to donate to charity. I'm glad they are doing what normal people do. It's refreshing.
This baby is causing a ton of grief in my family. My little sister lives in Scotland and had her first child on July 5th. A daughter. She named her what?? Harper. No kidding.
Ohhhh. Sorry Farmgirl.
I think the photos are sweet. I'm shocked she let out the beautiful one of her with no makeup on.
I think it's nice they just put them on Facebook like any other proud parents would. I don't get why celebs think pictures of their offspring are worth millions,most of them are no cuter than any other regular persons baby.
Meh, I don't care for baby pics, but my word David is a stunning man
Post a Comment