If information wants to be free, and if buying not equaling owning means that piracy isn't theft, then art doesn't belong to artists anyway. Additionally, it's facile to be too black-and-white about crime; criminals are still humans and being shit in one aspect of their lives doesn't necessitate that we act as if they were shit in EVERY aspect of their lives. Even criminals still bleed when pricked and laugh when tickled, etc. If we reject the possibility of redemption/rehabilitation, then we might as well execute all criminals. Now, that's not to say that we should simply forgive every criminal. But rehabilitation only works when it focuses on reminding the criminal of how they can still be useful to society.

It's made a lot easier when the shitty artist is dead. It's appropriate to talk about H. P. Lovecraft's racism and xenophobia, hell it even informs understanding of his work a bit better, but buying his work doesn't fund ongoing bad acts because he's been dead for almost a century. If you're going to be a terrible person, the least you can do is also be dead.

I read a very interesting book on this topic, Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer. It doesn’t really give a general answer (arguably impossible anyway), but it was a fascinating exploration of the dilemma.

Only if the artist is no longer making money off of the art

Sure.

I separate Gene Roddenberry's shitty meddling and rapey behaviour from the work that Gene Coone and D.C. Fontana put into making Star Trek a work of art.

I think about that when they don't love anymore and can't in any way profit from me consuming their work. Otherwise I just don't. There is enough to watch out there.

I don't know if you should try to separate art from artists when the art was a group effort and there were undoubtedly elements of the group that enabled his crimes so they could keep making the art.

I am emotionally incapable of enjoying that show anymore.