Grrr! Britney Baby Pics
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}So former pop diva turned reality-show alumna Britney Spears (search) was upset after Web sites posted pictures of her infant son this week.
Parents everywhere would probably side with Britney on this one, except for the fact that Spears and her husband Kevin Federline (search) have been negotiating with magazines over the sale of the photos.
I don't know which is worse -- selling out your infant's privacy or publishing a magazine that would pay for said pictures. And don't even get me going about the people who buy these rags.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}But which is it that made Spears threaten legal action? Was she upset that the privacy of her child was invaded, or was it that the posting of the pics dramatically decreases their worth?
Site publisher "Matt" at tangiblebrit.com, a site that published the photos, has issued an apology on his homepage stating that he is "sorry for any pain" he may have caused, and goes on to list Jive Records and SonyBMG as those who suffered from his online gaffe.
What kind of pain do you think those record labels felt? The only place those organizations felt pain was probably in their respective legal departments, when Ma Spears, her agents and managers called and demanded them to send cease-and-desist letters to the little Web guy.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Let's call it like it is. Britney's upset because the site scooped some major magazine, reportedly the powerhouse weekly, People.
But let's give her the benefit of the doubt — although this would be hard to believe, given the publicity-hungry couple's own actions. Imagine if Mr. and Mrs. Spears (yes, that's deliberate) decided to quash the negotiations in favor of their infant's privacy. That would, of course, put most reasonable people back on their side.
The real question here is how did this Web site get those pics, from supposedly a "private photo shoot." Just ask Cameron Diaz about that oxymoron.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}But then again, have you seen the pics of Brit's baby? I wouldn't doubt if all of this was a publicity stunt and "Matt" wasn't somehow involved with creating "buzz" around the baby pics. More buzz, more sales.
But that's just me being the jaded and cynical Grrr! guy.
Surely no parent, celebrity or not, would do such a thing.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Grrr!
Respond to Mike | Grrr! Lexicon
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Mike Straka is the director of operations and special projects for FOXNews.com, writes the Grrr! Column and hosts the weekly "The Real Deal" webcast on FOXNews.com and FOXfan.com.