Is it true that Bob Ross’s death was (initially) kept secret and exploited? What was the aftermath?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Bob Ross died in 1995 of lymphoma, and mainstream reporting and the recent documentary treatments do not substantiate a claim that his death was “kept secret” by caretakers or business partners; the available accounts instead focus on allegations that his image and commercial rights were aggressively controlled and monetized after his death by his former partners, Annette and Walt Kowalski [1] [2]. The aftermath has been a long, bitter dispute — public accusations in a Netflix documentary, multiple lawsuits, competing narratives about Bob Ross’s wishes, and eventual legal rulings that left Bob Ross, Inc. in the Kowalskis’ hands while his family continued to protest [2] [3] [4].
1. The question of secrecy at death: no solid support in the record
None of the substantive contemporary reporting or the documentary summaries in major outlets documents a campaign to hide Bob Ross’s death from the public; Ross’s death in 1995 from lymphoma is consistently reported and discussed openly in profiles and reviews [1] [4]. Claims that his death was “kept secret” are not supported by the cited coverage; instead, what is repeatedly reported are allegations from Ross’s son that, while Bob was ill and near death, the Kowalskis tried to extract control over his name and likeness — a very different and better-documented claim than a secreted death [1] [5].
2. Allegations of exploitation and how they entered the public record
The narrative that Ross’s name and image were “exploited” emerges primarily from Steve Ross and participants in Joshua Rofé’s Netflix documentary, which alleges the Kowalskis pressured Bob near the end of his life, then broadened licensing and merchandising beyond what Ross had intended, and in some cases litigated against his family and associates after his death [2] [3] [4]. Journalists and reviewers have recounted scenes from the film in which staffers and family members claim that Bob’s dying wishes about control of his likeness were ignored and that the company used the brand aggressively to generate revenue [6] [7].
3. The counter-narrative: business complexity and denials
Bob Ross, Inc. and the Kowalski family have denied that they stole anything, and some commentators have warned that the full reality may be more complicated — that the Kowalskis built the business that made Bob Ross a household name and that questions about rights ownership are legally and commercially thorny rather than straightforward theft [5] [6]. Reviewers note the film may tilt toward Steve Ross’s account and that many former employees would not talk on camera, allegedly for fear of legal retribution, which complicates any definitive public accounting [4].
4. The legal and financial aftermath
The dispute culminated in prolonged litigation and commercial maneuvering: Steve Ross pursued legal claims but ultimately lost his bid to regain control of the franchise and lacked funds to appeal after a 2019 settlement that effectively left control with Bob Ross, Inc., according to reporting summarizing court outcomes and the documentary’s assertions [2]. Under the Kowalskis’ stewardship the brand continued to be licensed and expanded into new products and media, a fact that fuels the “exploitation” charge from the family and critics who say revenue flowed to the company rather than to Bob’s heirs [3] [8].
5. Cultural consequence: reputation, fandom, and renewed scrutiny
The documentary and subsequent coverage reintroduced a generation to not only Ross’s gentle TV persona but also the darker backstage story, prompting angry fans, social-media campaigns, and renewed skepticism about how artist legacies are managed commercially; yet critics of the film and some journalists stress that the Kowalskis’ role in creating Bob Ross’s public success complicates a simple villain narrative [7] [6]. The net effect has been to turn a beloved cultural figure into the center of debates about intellectual property, the ethics of estate management, and whether commercial guardians honored or betrayed an artist’s final wishes — a debate whose legal resolution left the company in control but whose moral questions remain contested in public discourse [2] [4].