To sell the baby pictures or not to sell the baby pictures, that is the question....

Looks like the Urbans are unsure about selling the first baby pics of their newborn Sunday Rose to the gossip mags. I don't blame them. The whole thing is kinda tacky. However, doing so does get the paps off your ass -- and the money, unless the couple is completely morally bankrupt, can go to a good cause (usually the couple's choice of charity). So, if People or Us Weekly or whatever is willing to pay upwards of a gazillion bucks for those pics, and you have complete creative control -- maybe the best option is to bite the bullet and say cheese...

The new mum and her singer husband are undecided whether to release a photograph of the newborn tot, but if they do it will be for free, reports The Sydney Morning Herald. A source said, "They don't think it's appropriate to make deals. They are still deciding how they feel about (it) - if and when they will release a photo at all. But they realise there is enormous interest from the public and they are grateful and appreciative of that." [news.com.au]

Meanwhile, in Brangelinaville... the latest off is skyrocketing:

...few expectant mothers are forced to take to the roof for a breath of fresh air to prevent causing a media frenzy and fewer still are able to sell the first pictures of their newly enlarged family for a reported $11m (£5.5m) to an unnamed American magazine. Like the first pictures of their biological child Shiloh, born in Namibia in 2006, the money is said to be destined for a charitable cause. The couple also have three adopted children, Maddox, Pax and Zahara.