Mr. PUTNAM. Except as coupled with the word "uncovered." Mr. BETHUNE. Yes. Mr. MCGAVIN. If this language were made to read "accessible and uncovered," it would necessarily, then, require that it be placed upon the face of the photograph or picture, would it not? Mr. BETHUNE. No; I think not. Mr. MCGAVIN. You could not put it on the back, where it would be uncovered? Mr. BETHUNE. No; I do not think that that would be covered---- Mr. CAMPBELL. How about the word "visible?" Mr. BETHUNE. "Visible" was the word which I suggested at the conference. I do not know why it was not put in. Mr. PUTNAM. I may say, Mr. Bethune, if you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, that this question of notice was a long-discussed question between the artist group and the committee of the reproduction group; and they started, of course, at very opposite extremes. We understood finally that they reached this point: That in the first place there should be a notice. That was a concession on the part of the artist group, who thought there ought not to be any notice except their own name. That there should be a notice--that is, something to indicate copyright, even if it should be only "C" within a circle--was insisted upon by the reproducing group. So that it was agreed that there should be something to indicate copyright. Where should it be? Now, the present statute uses the term "visible;" but the reproducing group said (if I am wrong, Mr. Bethune will correct me): "We do not care that it shall be visible in the sense that he who runs may read it. We do not care, even, that it shall necessarily be on the front of the painting. It may be on the back of the painting. It must not be on the frame, because the frame is a detachable thing. People's tastes as to frames differ, and one collector likes one, while his successor may prefer another, and he will change the frame, and with it goes the notice. It must be on the thing itself"--that was their contention--"but it may be on the back." Now, if it is on the back, is the word "visible" descriptive? We wanted to get some word that would indicate that it might be put in some place where it could be found by somebody looking for it, and that was the requirement of the reproducer that somebody with a sincere desire, not with a malicious intention to appropriate it, but with a sincere desire to find out whether it was copyrighted or not, might find out with a reasonable search intending to look for it. That was satisfactory to them and that was the endeavor in using the word "accessible." Now, it is that little doubt which Mr. Bethune has suggested to you. Would it cover the back? And would it cover and prevent a case of covering it up? The notice might be covered up. So he has suggested the addition of the words "and uncovered," but the use of the word "accessible" rather than the word "visible" was to endeavor to express what we understood to be agreed to, as the agreed intention.