Any evidence that ex post facto also applies to civil cases (copyright-related)?

[Kadmos1]

Note: I get that most people here are probably not lawyers, but I think there are some people who here are legal experts (they know enough about the law but are not the people to be for asking legal advice when that is a lawyer's job) that could answer this. It is also possible to not be a lawyer and have a better understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work than SCOTUS.

Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called "The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause" on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later. On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2469141)

Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong.

TL;DR:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States. I am some web articles that is up to 10 pages if printed out of evidence that the Framers intended for this part of the American Constitution to apply to both civil and criminal cases. A hypothetical example is a web article that has a scan of an official Framers' writing. For example, that article had transcribed the text of that theoretical writing and that writing said that ex post facto does apply to civil and criminal cases.