I've always been sceptical of exactly how much those celebrity baby pictures actually adds to the bottom line of a newspaper or magazine. Until I saw a reprint of this article in the free (as in beer) amny :
The nationwide obsession with baby TomKat drove a whopping 4.3 million page views on vanityfair.com on Wednesday, according to a spokeswoman, nearly three times more than the previous record for page views when the title posted b-roll of Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson from Tom Ford's Hollywood issue in February. VF also signed up 4,000 subscriptions on Wednesday, its largest one-day total, from that day's 1.9 million unique visitors. No doubt a special offer that guaranteed receipt of the October issue to new subscribers (while supplies last) helped pique interest. On Thursday, the Web site attracted 1.1 million page views, 465,000 unique visitors and 1,700 new subscribers. Comparatively, vanityfair.com averages about 60,000 page views and about 20,000 uniques a day.
Let's assume TomKat got $3 million for the photos (I haven't seen the amount reported, but it is safe to assume they got less than the $4 million for the Brangelina photos).
Let's also assume the 5,700 new subscribes chose the bargin 24 issues for $40 deal, which would net Vanity Fair $228,000. Not bad for just two days "work".
Who knows how much other revenue was generated by print and on-line advertising.