The difference between all the things that you listed is that works of art are able to give royalties to a person. If you continue to buy or consume their products they still profit.
Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?