Brangelina’s Move To France? French Law Against Paparazzi!

Who can blame Brangelina for setting up home in the south of France? The Mediterranean Sea, the vineyards and of course the large estates with moats, southern France seems to have it all. Apparently, there’s even more to this world-class holiday hot-spot than meets the eye. French law is tough on paparazzi, especially when it comes to taking pictures of children.

Monaco’s royal family made $681,120 through lawsuits in France in 2006, the newspaper Le Figaro has reported. French magazines are regularly ordered to splash “mea culpa” notices across their covers,

“This country is medieval in terms of its legislation about printing information about celebrities,” said Loic Sellin, editor of glossy Voici magazine. “It’s shameful. Absolutely everything can be considered an attack on someone’s private life.”

The lines are blurry, but there’s general agreement on the need to shield children from the paparazzi. In order to avoid lawsuits, magazines regularly blur out the faces of celebrities’ children or simply not publish the photos at all.

The four Jolie-Pitt children – Maddox, 6, Pax, 4, Zahara, 3, & Shiloh, 2 – are an exception to this French law, simply because they have been seen out in public so often. However, if any magazines were to obtain snapshots of Jolie and her yet-unborn (?) twins, French lawyers say they would counsel them to blur the babies’ faces in most cases,

“Let’s say she went to the French Open with her children, I would say, ‘she’s out in public and knows she’ll be seen, there’s no reason to ban the photo,’” said lawyer Daphne Juster. “But if she’s strolling in the park in sunglasses, minding her own business, she could say, ‘I tried to be discreet, this is not part of my public life,’ and can sue.”

Emmanuel Pierrat, who defends both sides of the story, said he might urge magazines to run photos of the babies snuggling up against their mother, or turned away from the camera, without their faces showing. Of course, he says, “some would take the risk anyway.”

There is an obvious added incentive for Jolie and Pitt to sue should the French pap’s get an ‘illegal’ snap of the twins: The couple sold exclusive photos of Shiloh to People magazine for a reported $4 million and donated the money to charity, a practice they’re likely to duplicate, with rumors brewing of a bidding war close to $10 million this time around.

Source: AP News

Photo: INFdaily, May 15

Filed under: Angelina Jolie

16 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. devin

    Who can blame them? Please they brought all of this upon themselves. They have been pimping out those kids since day one. They were the ones who had People magazine in Pax’s bedroom the first night he came home. The hypocrisy of these two really make me sick.

    Reply
  2. Hannah

    I agree Devin. They claim they want privacy, yet every chance they get they’re pimping their children out to magazines and media outlets. I have very little respect for these two. It’s unfortunate they get as much attention as adoration as they do because it should be saved for a more deserving pair.

    I remember when they did the Pax People shoot. I was like “Well, that was quick.” But I suppose money talks…

    Reply
  3. lady

    I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU GUYS BECAUSE ONE THING IS TO SAY THAT THEY DONT HIDE THEIR KIDS AND ANOTHER TO SAY THAT THEY DO IT FOR MONEY… THATS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONATED EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR THEY HAVE MADE WITH THOSE PICTURES, NOTLIKE OTHER CELEBS WHO HAVE NEVER DONATED ANYTHING.

    Reply
  4. Tracy

    Here we go, ‘they donated it all’, so that makes it ok? I don’t think so. If they were so concerned with donating that amount of money to a cause, they could do so themselves. They obviously have it lying around-look at all the $$ Brad just spent on hideous furniture. They pimp out their children regularly. They aren’t stupid-they know that kids are the best marketing tool out there nowadays-and they take full advantage.
    She who dies with the most kids wins?

    Reply
  5. Kate

    So, just becuase they dont hide their kids in huge estates and actually bring them with them and out to places such as museums and fun outings, theyre pimping them out? Get a clue. They dont want to live like hermits.

    Reply
  6. Tracy

    Yeah, Kate, those are the same-selling their pics and taking their kids out to do things.
    And why do you think they never used the back door when taking & picking up Maddox from school even if after it caused a problem?
    And if you think for one minute that they don’t eat it all up when they do take them out, you’re the one who is clueless, honey.
    They’ll only hate it when they stop having their pictures taken.

    Reply
  7. Hannah

    Candid paparazzi pictures are one thing, selling your children out to a magazine for millions of dollars is a completely different thing.

    Reply
  8. Claudius

    Candid pictures are one thing but selling the kids to paparazzi for “charity” is another. I think we have to remember that things are very different these days. Tabloids would never had dared put the child of a celebrity on their cover even with their parents with a story about the child or the parents. These days, it has changed. We now have the likes of Shiloh, Suri, Preston Federline all making the covers on stories about their parents splitting up or how they are with their siblings. There is something very wrong here.

    The Jolie-Pitts don’t have to hide their kids but the fact that they introduced a few of their kids via magazine deals have not helped at all. It enables the lines to be blurred and perhaps that is why they have not made it known publicly that they are appalled at seeing Shiloh on the cover of OK! “begging mummy and daddy to stop fighting” or have a story on all their kids about how they squabble. These children should NOT be fodder for the tabloids not even when the story is “sweet” or “cute” about their birthdays or the current OK cover of how Shiloh can’t wait to meet the kids with her getting the cover all to herself, they have no business being stories on tabloid pages.

    Nicole Ritchie, Aguilera and other “stars” who have done magazine civer deals will pretty much suffer the same thing. Their children are now tabloid stars. Do you know how long this will go on for?

    It is not right for children to be used this way. Violet Affleck, the Moder kids, Damon kids do not have this problem and I do understand that their parents are low profile but we’ve had numerous marriage problem stories on the Moder marriage in the tabloids without their kids making the cover.

    Celebs don’t have to hide their kids but they shouldn’t go out of their way to appease the desire of the public to see their kids by simply selling them to the magazines even if they DO give the money to charity especially if they could easily give the money from their pockets. If a woman down my road who makes less than $40,000 a year made a deal like and gave the money to charity then I can understand that but two people who probably make about $30m each year when their earnings are combined begs the question of why? It is not about the charity, it is about ensuring the lives of the kids remain private and is not invaded by the media.

    They are pioneers of this trend of magazine deals for baby pictures and it needs to stop. I shudder to think what the old stars think of it all. They worked hard to keep their kids’ lives private but these days, anything goes.

    Reply
  9. Hannah

    Well said Claudius. Bravo, I couldn’t agree more.

    Reply
  10. J Weiss

    French law is tough on paparazzi.

    Where was it that Princess Di died?

    Reply
  11. Tracy

    Claudius, very nicely put.

    Reply
  12. lady

    oh common!!! if they dont sell the pics paps would anyways get the photos cause they would follow them everywhere until they get them, and guess what! the babies would still be put on a cover and not getting any money for it, so i would rather to sell the pics and donate it than having them like crazy trying to get the “most wanted pics”. And about brad buying furniture, he has the right to do it, thats what we all work for, or not? to buy anything we want, lucky him that he has money enough to donate and buy everything he wants to.

    I mean get over it and admit that we all are in this site because we like to see those pictures,so whats the problem? if you really think celebs shouldnt show their kids, stop buying mags and reading this sites, cause its us who make them so wanted.

    Plus, I love angelina and cant wait to see those babies!

    Reply
  13. lady

    i bet if anyone here was so important to make people want to see their pics, they wouldnt doubt it for a minute before selling them for millions!!

    Reply
  14. Ribouldingue

    J Weiss,
    French law is tough on tabloid. They are the one who will have to pay huge fines if they publish photos of Pitt’s children. But a paparazzi have every right to take a photo of the kids (provided it is in a public space) and then sell it to an english or american tabloid

    Reply
  15. Nicola

    If they hadn’t sold the rights to a photo shoot that they could control, you can guarantee there would have been paps trespassing on there property to have taken them anyway. This way they can take get it over with and not have the media frenzy. It’s unfair but they would have no peace if everyone else had been trying to get the first pictures of Shiloh.

    Reply
  16. Tracy

    That’s why you let them take all the pix they want. For Free. They are just feeding into the frenzy by selling to the highest bidder.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>