Mr. BETHUNE. I think it will express it if "uncovered" is added. Mr. PUTNAM. I should add that the reproducers definitely objected to the privilege on the part of the photographers, and so on, the print publishers, etc., of putting the notice on the mount; but of course it was understood that they had that privilege at present. They have that privilege at present, but the reproducers never thought that that was reasonable, and did not concede it to be reasonable. Mr. BETHUNE. Now, reproducers are open to fraudulent attempts to sell to them copyrighted works by simply removing the notice of copyright, and section 25, in the draft of the bill, imposes simply a penalty of $100 as a minimum and $1,000 as a maximum fine for the removal of this notice. We think that the punishment should be imprisonment as well as fine. We want to protect ourselves from that fraud, which is very frequently encountered. Mr. CHANEY. So that that paragraph of that section as it stands is satisfactory to you? Mr. BETHUNE. Section 25, sir? Mr. CHANEY. Yes. Mr. BETHUNE. No. We want, as well as a punishment by fine of not less than $100, the words inserted "or imprisonment" or "and imprisonment," both for a specified term; it is not material how long it shall be. Mr. WEBB. Have you suggested your amendment to this section 14 that some word instead of "accessible" should be used? Did you suggest "visible"? Was that your idea? Mr. BETHUNE. That was the word which we did suggest, but "accessible" is satisfactory to us if "uncovered" is coupled with it. Mr. WEBB. You want it to read "accessible and uncovered"? Mr. BETHUNE. Yes. Mr. WEBB. Would that apply to a magazine picture--a picture in a magazine that had the notice on the back of the original? You could look for it, and it would be uncovered. Mr. BETHUNE. In the case of a magazine, as I understand, it would be covered by the copyright of the magazine. Mr. WEBB. Well, that is all right; I did not understand how that would be. Mr. BETHUNE. Those are the principal features---- Senator MALLORY. I would like to ask you with reference to that suggestion which you were referring to in regard to publication in the matter of a work of art, or a plastic work or drawing. Is there any definite suggestion that you could make, any definite change, so as to convey your idea? I think I know what you want; but it seems to me it is going to be pretty difficult to use an expression there that will convey the exact idea that you desire. Now, in the matter of a work of art, as long as it remains in the hands of the creator of it, one would think it would not be necessary, but it was suggested to me by the chairman here that even the maker of the work of art might want to copyright it, although he did not intend to sell it; he would want to prevent people from infringing on it. Mr. BETHUNE. Precisely. Senator MALLORY. And yet there would be no publication; he could keep it in his own library.