Ann,
That's a really good question. The more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. So maybe it's best to simplify: museums get to say no, even if the artist says yes. So legal physical ownership of the material object seems to trump everything. I've always been shocked that if one owns a famous painting, one can throw it on the bonfire, sans consequence.
On the other hand, you're right, ethical considerations trump legalities here. It's not as if you're depriving the artist of potential future revenue. But she does have an ethical right to be consulted about the use of her image. Some artists might object to having their image associated with erotica or religion.
Still, such an objection, in a case like this, is extremely unlikely. So back to the heart of your question: could she say no? Yes. Could she legally enforce that no? She could try, but she'd lose, and the cost to her would be prohibitive. This isn't popular music or film, where most of these cases occur, this is poetry and art, and there just isn't much money in either. Most likely scenario: she'll be flattered and happy. Maybe she'll even add a line to her vitae.
Best,
Bill
|