Picked up from social media... more details will follow
"...Waking up to the sad news that Dave Friedman - the official Shelby American photographer from 1962 to 1965 - passed away yesterday at the age of 86. "
How sad, the loss of Dave Friedman. He witnessed and photographed the incredible history of Shelby American. His photography in black and white captured the personalities of the people, the building and development of the cars, the races etc. Again, an incredible archive of images.
Condolences to his family and friends.
Godspeed.
Earl J Castillo
Very sad news.But thank God he was around to capture all that history for us!
You know these guys are sitting around together having a beer alike the Doolittle Raiders.
I envy Dave for being there and taking all those great photos. Rest in Peace sir. You deserve it.
What a great Photographer! He was doing it back when it took way more skill and effort to accomplish successful shots! We salute you Sir!!
His photos help maintain the legacy of the cars, racers and personnel of an amazing era. I had the pleasure of chatting with Dave at a the Indianpolis SAAC Convention when his Shelby American book was being released. He was such an interesting man and a keen eye photographer. While he will be missed, his works, thanksfully, remain.
RIP Dave, I have all the books from him so his legacy will never be lost.
RIP to Mr. Friedman.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a70556298/david-friedman-photographer-for-shelby-and-many-others-has-died/
Had a chance to talk with Dave about a year ago. I had questions about a specific photo taken at SAI and was hoping he either took, or at least had some knowledge about it. Said he'd be glad to help and gave me his personal email to send him a copy. Turns out it was taken after he left, but he was very kind and gave me all the time I needed to answer my questions. RIP Dave, and thanks again for the help!
Here's something I always wondered about: if Dave was paid for his work at Shelby American, who actually owned the various photos he took? Him, or Shelby? I compare it to a wedding photographer - the photographer is paid for his or her work and the photos are owned by the family. I'd enjoy hearing thoughts on this.
Hello Ned,
I do remember some issue with the ownership of the negatives from about 20 +/- years ago or something. Didn't Dave try or did attempt to "reacquire" the negatives back? As early SAI images and history regained popularity.
I vaguely remember hearing about this. It put David Friedman in a very bad light and made him very unpopular. (I'm being nice in my choice of words).
The pictures/images he took were incredible as it documented SAI from the beginning. But using your analogy of a wedding photographer and ownership of the negatives, was part of the issue.
Again this is what I remember, correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
~Earl J
(Ned, don't you miss your Lake Pacid "cottage"? ~E)
Back in the day, photographers were hired and paid for the photoshoot, they retained the film generally negatives as most persons or companies didn't have the dark room equipment and materials to make prints and do retouching or to properly store the film. Then they also sold you prints as needed.
You could negotiate that you owned the film, but the photographer would still hold it for you and still make prints as required as most didn't have darkrooms and print making abilities.
The digital cameras and reproduction output methods (taking your own photo editing "PhotShop" for sizing, cropping etc., to make files for sending out for any and all needs) came and changed some/all of that, as well as scanners to turn existing film into digital files. The waters got muddier.
Different venues (print, on-line etc.) want different file sizes & types a whole maze in itself.
Now you can negotiate getting the (copies) of the original digital but sometimes you still need to acknowledge the photographer.
I too had heard there was an issue, years ago, with Friedman and SAAC (Kopec?) about receiving/being given film and loaning back film and not getting it returned and then Dave sold it and got it (borrowed) it back more than once to other entities? and others were not pleased with him?
Just some info, others will know or contribute more.
^^^ Great explanation JD.
Photographers were at the vanguard of protecting creator's rights. Before digital and the ability to make copies with the click of a mouse and send them via email, photographers could protect their negatives like they were their own babies.
Who owns what would normally be worked out in a business agreement before work began along with how the work could be used.
I would be fascinated to know if Dave had a contract and if so exactly what was spelled out in it.
- Phillip
There was a serious issue with Dave's negatives many years ago. A well-known and highly respected Cobra enthusiast in the LA area made an offer to Dave to purchase every one of his Shelby-related negatives, and a deal was struck at what both considered a rational amount, well into the thousands of dollars. This was during the time when Shelby products were considered more curiosities than collectibles, and before their values exploded. Dave made sure to warn his buyer about allowing untrustworthy types to "borrow" any of the negatives, and suggested the possibility that he might not get them back if he were to lend them out. It wasn't roughly a year after he acquired them that the buyer was approached by Friedman himself, who explained that he had been approached by a publisher who proposed a book project that Dave said he would be glad to work on but he no longer had his negatives. So Dave made a strong pitch to the buyer, explaining that if he could briefly borrow his old negatives, he would be extremely grateful. Of course the buyer said yes and allowed Dave to use his negatives. But as time went on and Friedman showed no interest to bringing them back, a call was made asking when the buyer could expect to have the negatives returned. That's when Dave's true colors arose and he said, "Look, you dumb bastard, I warned you that if you ever lent out those negatives there was a good chance you might never get them back!" And he hung up. No, he never made any restitution to the individual who had bought and paid for the negatives. This explains my disdain for one Dave Friedman, photographer.
(Ned, don't you miss your Lake Pacid "cottage"? ~E)
[/quote]
Earl, I still use it every chance I get. Thankfully there is nothing to miss.
In the event the Cobra enthusiast mentioned in a prior post - who lost the negatives he bought after Dave "borrowed" them back - has any desire to comment or correct any details, I would welcome that.
Wow, what a legacy to leave
This has been one of those things kept on the "down low" over the years. Now that he has passed, the truth can more freely come out.
Pete Brock and Steele Therkleson took quite a few photographs during their daily activities... somehow the credit for those shots got attributed to Dave ::)
Kind regards,
Vern
In my opinion, if you couldn't talk about the man while he was alive, You shouldn't be beating him down Now that he is dead and unable to say anything. As the british say, that's just bad form.
It's just like the people that are now trying to besmirche The memory of Caesar Chavez, 33 years after he died. Not saying he was guilty or not guilty. But why not say something a long time ago?
Roy
It sounds like people knew this information before he passed, so I see no problem sharing them now.
Carroll Shelby had more than few stories as well
Roy, it's not a question of "beating him down now that he's dead." A good number of Cobra owners have known about this for many years. We never felt the need to expand the issue further as that would have been "bad form" and it became quite apparent that nothing was going to be done to rectify the situation.
Quote from: TA Coupe on March 17, 2026, 11:31:57 PMIn my opinion, if you couldn't talk about the man while he was alive, You shouldn't be beating him down Now that he is dead and unable to say anything. As the british say, that's just bad form.
It's just like the people that are now trying to besmirche The memory of Caesar Chavez, 33 years after he died. Not saying he was guilty or not guilty. But why not say something a long time ago?
Roy
On the one hand, I agree in principle with what you are saying Roy.
On the other hand, I don't think holding someone to account for their actions is "beating them down". It is what it is. Dead or alive, Dave was a flawed human being just like all of us are. Frankly, I have always admired how charitable the person who bought his negatives has been over the years to have never publicly held Dave to account for it all.
Balls and strikes... nothing personal.
Kind regards,
Vern