By peoplestaff225
Updated August 26, 2006 10:15 AM
Advertisement

We walk a very fine line by covering celebrity babies. Some celebrities are comfortable having their children photographed, some are comfortable with it on their own terms (like releasing photos to People) while others don’t even want to release their child’s name or birthdate, let alone have a photo taken of them.

Matt Damon hasn’t released photos of his and wife Luciana‘s baby Isabella, 2 months, yet and the paps are still trying to get a good shot of her face. Leaving an art gallery, they covered the baby with a blanket and Matt tried to fend off the photographers. We’re not comfortable publishing the photos- besides there’s not much to see except parents trying to protect their offspring, but I think it’s interesting that it made the x17online.com website.

If your goal is to show celebrities, period, then it’s relevant but it’s really invasive. If someone is covering their face, what’s the point in taking a photo? If someone is in public, legally, they are allowed to be photographed. But ethically, if they are really going out of their way to cover their baby, they should be left alone.

What do you think?