Fan Fare

Entertainment behind the scenes

Should celebs have the sole rights to baby, family snaps?

July 24, 2008

brangelina.jpgBrad Pitt’s lawyers on Thursday threatened legal action against anyone publishing recent photographs believed to have been taken by paparazzi of the actor and his newly enlarged family at their French estate. This raises the question: Should celebrities have the sole rights to photos of their children or even themselves because they have signed an exclusive deal to sell them to a media outlet?  

Unconfirmed reports have said Pitt and partner Angelina Jolie will be paid $11 million from selling exclusive rights to the first photographs of new twins Knox and Vivienne which they plan to give to charity – a deal similar to that struck after the birth of daughter Shiloh in 2006. But Pitt’s lawyers say some photos were taken of his family at their French estate using a powerful telephoto lens and sold to an unidentified buyer which was a “malicious violation” of the actor’s privacy rights under both French and California law. Various websites have already pulled the photos down.

Pitt and Jolie went to great lengths to shut the media out as they expanded their family, going to a hospital in Nice to give birth and surrounded by heavy security. Should the law be on their side to block photos taken by an unauthorised person and without their permission? 


Yes, the parents of a child are the sole and only owners of pictures of their own children. No argument. No discussion.

Posted by Burke Omalley | Report as abusive

I completely agree.

Posted by Lee | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see