Short answer. No. The Civil Code creates an express exception: where the value of a finished work, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than the material used, the owner of that material cannot appropriate the work and take it from the maker, even if the maker acted in bad faith.
What the law says
the owner of the material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material
Civil Code, Article 474 — Specification. Read the full provision →
The general rule on specification
When someone transforms another person's material into a new thing — a sculptor who uses someone else's marble, a painter who uses someone else's canvas — the law calls this specification. Article 474 of the Civil Code sets out who owns the result. The basic rule favours the maker: a person who in good faith uses another's material to make something entirely different may keep the finished work, paying the material owner for its value. The material owner generally cannot demand the work itself, only compensation for the raw material taken.
The bad-faith rule and the exception that overrides it
If the maker acted in bad faith — knowing the material was not his to use — the balance tilts sharply. A bad-faith maker ordinarily loses all claim to the work, and the material owner may take it without paying anything. But here is the important limit: even against a bad-faith maker, the material owner cannot appropriate the work if, for artistic or scientific reasons, the value of the finished work is considerably greater than the value of the raw material. In that situation, the material owner is left to claim damages and compensation, not the work itself.
Why this exception exists
The legislature recognised that some works acquire a value that dwarfs their raw ingredients. A painting by a skilled artist on borrowed canvas may be worth thousands of times more than the canvas itself. Allowing the canvas owner to seize the painting in that situation would harm society more broadly — the artistic or scientific value would be controlled by someone who contributed only the lesser ingredient. The maker may still owe the material owner compensation for the value of what was taken, but the work stays with the maker. Ownership and obligation to pay damages are treated as separate questions.
What the material owner can still recover
Even where the exception applies, the material owner is not left empty-handed. The maker owes compensation for the value of the material taken, and where bad faith is involved, the maker is also liable for any damages the material owner suffered. What the material owner cannot have is the work itself. The practical implication: if you are the material owner and the finished work's artistic or scientific value clearly far exceeds what you contributed, your remedy lies in money, not in possession. Consult a lawyer about what specific compensation you may be entitled to, as the facts of each situation will matter.