Brad Pitt ticked off about pap pics of his kids playing in their backyard

Brad Pitt's lawyers have threatened legal action against people publishing recent photos of Pitt, Angelina Jolie and their older kids happily  cavorting on the grounds of Miraval, their private French castle estate.

Pitt's legal team claims the pics were taken by paps using a powerful telephoto lens and sold to an unidentified buyer, according to a letter published on the Smoking Gun website.

Pitt's lawyer says the photos are a "malicious violation" of the actor's privacy rights under French and California law. One unspecified photo agency that sold the pictures has agreed to stop further sales and removed the images from its website.

Here's the Dish Rag's item, and if you click on the link there, you go to the Pop Sugar site, which now says, "Sorry, images removed."

I thought those photos looked suspiciously and  uncomfortably close. At first, I thought maybe Brangelina had had the photos taken and had released them themselves. How else could a camera get that near?

But it's downright creepy that someone got that close to their kids on their private estate with all that security. Wonder if it was an inside job?

I'd be angry too. But I'd wanna do more than just sue the people who published the photos. I'd wanna seek action against intrusive photographers.

It's sad, really. This couple has moved to France to find peace and privacy for their family. Leave them alone, for crying out loud.

Photo: Protective hands-on dad Brad Pitt last year with Pax and Zahara.
WireImage

Comments

[JillM]

I feel for those kids but not for the actors/actress. They have made a fortune off "US". They get no privacy, period.

[GK]

we the heck are they always carrying these kids?!?!

[Olddog]

Nowhere does it say that their privacy means any less than yours, or mine. I'd be tempted to capture the photographers one at a time and make them disappear forever.
I'd want to hurt them. I think that Mr. Pitt shows enormous restraint most of the time.

[crb]

Why does acting automatically mean no privacy or right to your personal life? Get a grip JillM... one does not autimatically mean the other for pete's sake! I think people should be able to "hide" when and where they want without interruption. Watching a movie or reading a magazine article certainly does NOT entitle anyone to know the most intimate detail about anyone. Especially when it comes to strangers taking pics of kids! back off!

[avraam jack]

.
Pap sounds too nice.
.
Call them what they are - PHOTOSTALKERS.
.

[deb]

when an actor/actress makes all this money off of movies that we pay to see, they lose their right to privacy. No, it's not fair, but it's life. they knew that before they started making money and still got in the business. An actor/actress entering the business today knows what Brad Pitt is going through, but i bet they are willing to sell it all to become famous and make tons of money. if the pitt/jolie family does not want their picture taken, maybe they should get out of the show businesses, huh? i'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's life. don't like it, get a different profession.

[MrPopularity]

Brad's a hippocrit. He and Angelina have sold their children's pictures for money and whether they use that money for donations to a charity is irrelevant. Brad and Angelina by their own actions promote this type of behavior. Privacy ha, does anyone have privacy anymore, 1984 - Big Brother is always watching even the gov't spies on us. Wuss why doesn't he just hide inside his million dollar home or buy an island, rich cry baby.

[Merty]

For crying out loud! They wouldn't be where they are without the paparazzi and photographers who keep our interest with their pictures! QUIT complaining!

[pittbull]

Aw brad were the pics ugly? Sorry you ask for it with your orphanage in France.

[rjl]

who cares

[Steve]

Its not about privacy but more on their kids security. Would you feel your kids are safe when you see pictures by paparazzis taken what seems like at very close range inside your home?

[Common sense]

These two entertain us with their movie performances. How does that mean they have no right to private lives? Especially their kids.
The behavior of the paparazzi amounts to stalking and harassment. Laws should have been in place since Princess Diane was killed trying to escape them.

[Trevor]

Obviously it has to be an inside job if the pictures were taken up close with that much security around. The photographers were probably James Haven and Holly Goline. A celebrity brother and pseudo assistant have to earn their money somehow.

[iH8uAll]

"we the heck are they always carrying these kids?!?!

Posted by: GK | July 24, 2008 at 03:27 PM "

They can't afford shoes for all of them. Duh.

[James In Oakland]

Awww. Poor baby.

[Not a Sheeple]

Jolie and Pitt put a bounty on the kids' heads. It is there fault that the children are in danger.

If Pitt were to sue a pap, would the pap be able to make them tell all of the times they did set up photo-ops with the kids?

[meme]

you have no privacy when you decide to act and display yourself for our entertainment which we pay you. Understand...no privacy...

[nd]

First off having your privacy invaded is a nightmare, regardless of other factors. So yeah legal action needs to be taken. I don't know enough to say whether it was an inside job or not.

However in this case how can you ignore the fact that these two have not only been pimping photos of their kids as infants for money, but showcased them in family spreads for PEOPLE and other major magazines for three years? This contributes heavily to the perception that celebrity's children are everyone's business. And that has nothing to do with the paparazzi. Not all celebrities put their kids in harm's way like that..

On top of that, they might have held annual fundraisers for third world children at risk and maybe raised as much money. Saying your doing it for charity does NOT explain away the damage.

They were never really willing to give up all they needed to for these children.

[pittbull]

He looks so retarded with his mouth open all the time. Pittiful is afraid of the pictures of his real hairline without the hat or the wig.

[ebmo]

The Papps were hounding this couple ever since they got together.

Before that they were spying on JA even going so far as to invade her privacy by printing semi nude photos of her taken with a telephoto lens on her own property.

They all, as have many other celebrities, (Patrick Dempsey, J-Lo, Britney, etc...) have tried to do damage control by allowing photos to be taken and published in an environment that THEY CONTROL.

Yet It still doesn't keep the press from crowding around them and screaming their names any time they go anywhere. (Remember the media when J-LO and Ben were dating? Or the indignation of Britney having to go through her breakdown on ever magazine cover imaginable? IT was absolutely tragic at how many people got glee out of watching this poor girl come apart at the seams!)
Whether or not they keep the money or donate it to charity is strictly their decision. They know they are going to be hounded, they try to control it.

The fact is when they do not make public appearances, all the innuendo and rumors get started about how they must be hiding something, i.e. when Shiloh was a baby and she wasn't seen out on a regular basis it was reported that something was wrong with her, When ET was reporting that AJ had had her babies, every one was saying she should make an appearance to confirm or deny it)
They cannot win no matter what they do.

They do have a right to privacy, even if they chose their job.

I certainly do not want my clients or the people I work with to have unlimited access to my private home.

Would any of you?

[nd]

Except other celebrities don't talk much about their kids in detail or what their plans are to expand (or not expand) their family, or parenting in general, or their private relationships (whew), nearly as much as THEY do. Do they?

I'll bet MOST people couldn't tell you, the name of Witherspoon's or Bon Jovi's, Speilberg's Blanchett's, Bale's, Zeta-Jones/Douglas's, Mia Farrow's children off the top of their heads, or what they look like. They don't talk about their families extensively, or their future family plans, or pose them in magazine spreads. They restrict what they talk about in interviews, and public venues they're appear in (when possible), for the sake of their children (if you really had to, wouldn't you take fewer projects to protect you family from public recognition, so they could live normal, stable lives?)

My God, Pitt was talking about his plans for a big family (mostly girls), during an "Oceans (12? 13?)" interview before he even split with JA. Why? Whose business was it?

So sure I think there ought to be laws against paparazzi photographing children, but also about attention hungry movie stars who don't understand boundaries, and who in various ways erode the lines between public and private. Who does more to put the spotlight on their children, and in the process make it harder for everyone else, than they do?

[ebmo]

It is not a crime to talk about your children, even to brag about them.
AJ and BP are continually asked about them.

It is also not a crime to take your children out in public to a zoo or a museum.

The reason the public is so aware of their children is because the Papps follow them everywhere to take pictures of them and have done so ever since they got together.

No one, whether you like them or not, deserves to be the target of this type of invasion of privacy.

[nd]

A crime? No it's not a crime. But there are actors who make it clear their family are off limits, "I don't talk about my personal life"... they leave it with a few brief and innocuous comments. Why would you want to do more anyway? You can "brag" and "talk about" your kids, personal plans to people you actually KNOW.

Are Depp, Blanchett, Theron, Blanchard and Bale lesser actors than Brangelina because they're private? Gandolfini? De Niro? No?

The reason the press are after them so savagely to begin with, is because they've always been inappropriate, if not at times sensationalistic. It creates buzz around them and keeps them in the llimelight which by the way, is good for ticket sales.

Some might even surmise they'd lose some parts to some of the afore mentioned, (not to mention talent coming up from behind) without it.

I'm pretty sure they can't stop doing this anyway. Which is why I think there ought to be laws governing both sides. Because I think this creates dangerously intense interest, where it doesn't belong.

[ebmo]

I guess I would ask who gets to "make the rules" or write the laws that govern behavior? In a perfect world, I would!!!!

I suspect that in your 'perfect world' you would.

The fact is that the press breaks laws and committs reckless endangerment to get what they want. They do this with many other respected celebs as well.

Whether or not you believe that they are appropriate or inappropriate, you are blaming the victims of a crime for the attack.

[nd]

Yes I think there ought to be laws against photographing ANYONE on their private property, at a distance, much less trespassing to get a shot of children.

But this has opened up a can of worms. Because while privacy is certainly a big issue, I think it's folly to ignore the obvious comparisons to the aforementioned celebrities and the way THEY handle public versus private.

What I'm saying is, in THIS case the problem won't stop by just reigning in unethical photographers, because they are NOT the only ones drawing unprecedented attention to these minors, and making them more likely prey for criminals. Not to mention robbing them of a quality of life in public venues to a far greater extent.