Datasets:

---

chengliuyan

/

OR-PAM-Reg-4K

like 0

Formal Response to the Allegations

Dear HuggingFace Team and Community,

We have reviewed the complaint posted in this Discussion and wish to formally respond as follows.

1. Our Dataset Was Independently Acquired

The data contained in this dataset was independently acquired by our research team using our own imaging equipment and experimental setup. This dataset does not involve, reference, or derive from any third-party data, funding, or institutional animal ethics approvals. We bear full responsibility for and retain full ownership of this dataset.

2. We Are Not a Party to the Alleged Paper Dispute

The complaint conflates two separate matters: (a) allegations regarding certain arXiv preprints authored by a third party, and (b) the datasets hosted under this repository. We are not affiliated with the authors or content of the arXiv preprints referenced in the complaint. We urge the complainant to direct paper-related allegations to the appropriate parties and platforms, rather than targeting an unrelated dataset repository.

3. Our Provenance Is Verified by Immutable Third-Party Records

The publication date, version history, and authorship of this dataset are permanently recorded via:

• DOI registration (immutable, maintained by DataCite)
• HuggingFace platform Git commit history (server-side, immutable)

These third-party records constitute verifiable, tamper-proof evidence of our data provenance and timeline.

4. The Submitted "Evidence" Does Not Meet Evidentiary Standards

We note that the materials submitted by the complainant consist primarily of:

• Local file directory screenshots with timestamps — File timestamps are trivially modifiable on any operating system (e.g., via the touch command on Unix or file property editors on Windows) and carry no evidentiary weight in any formal proceeding.
• Visual comparisons between OR-PAM images — OR-PAM images of mouse brain vasculature inherently exhibit similar morphological patterns across different acquisitions, laboratories, and imaging systems. Visual resemblance of biological tissue does not establish derivation or ownership.
• WeChat screenshots — These do not demonstrate any connection between this dataset and the complainant's claimed data.

None of the above constitutes evidence verified or timestamped by an independent third party.

5. Regarding the "Original Large Images" Presented as Evidence

We wish to bring an important technical fact to the attention of HuggingFace and the community:

Earlier versions of this dataset contained spatial coordinate metadata (row and column indices) that described the position of each image patch within a larger field of view. This information was part of the dataset's public structure and was accessible to anyone who downloaded the data.

Using these coordinates, any individual could trivially reconstruct large composite images by stitching the publicly available patches back together. The resulting composite images would naturally be visually identical to the original full field-of-view acquisitions.

We have verified this by performing the reconstruction ourselves from our own published patch data. We therefore note that the "original large images" presented by the complainant as purported evidence of prior ownership are fully consistent with images that could have been reconstructed from our publicly available dataset.

This version of the dataset (V3) has removed all spatial coordinate metadata as a precautionary measure.

6. Burden of Proof

If the complainant believes this dataset infringes upon their intellectual property rights, we respectfully request that they provide:

• Evidence of prior publication on any public platform with a verifiable, third-party timestamp predating our DOI registration and HuggingFace upload records
• A pixel-level forensic comparison between the actual data files (.h5) hosted in this repository and their claimed original data, conducted or verified by an independent third party
• Any form of third-party-verified documentation (e.g., DOI, institutional repository record, patent filing, or notarized certification) establishing their claimed ownership prior to our publication date

To date, no such evidence has been presented. We emphasize that self-generated materials — including local file timestamps, personal screenshots, and unverified documents — do not meet the standard required to substantiate claims of intellectual property infringement.

7. Formal Process Requirement

If the complainant genuinely believes their intellectual property rights have been infringed, the appropriate course of action is to file a formal DMCA takedown notice or equivalent legal complaint through HuggingFace's official content dispute resolution process, rather than making unverified allegations in a public Discussion forum.

A formal legal process requires the complainant to submit claims under penalty of perjury, which ensures accountability for the accuracy of the allegations made.

We respectfully request that HuggingFace direct the complainant to the appropriate legal channels should they wish to pursue this matter further.

8. Reservation of Rights and Deadline for Evidence

We take the integrity of our work and our reputation seriously.

We hereby provide the complainant a period of 14 calendar days from the date of this response to submit verifiable, third-party-authenticated evidence supporting their claims through HuggingFace's formal dispute resolution channels.

In the absence of such evidence within this period, we will consider the allegations to be unsubstantiated and will:

• Request that HuggingFace close this Discussion and remove the defamatory content
• Reserve the right to pursue all available legal remedies, including but not limited to claims for defamation, tortious interference, and abuse of process
• Report the matter to the complainant's affiliated institution if the false allegations persist

9. Request to HuggingFace

We respectfully request that HuggingFace:

• Evaluate the evidence presented by both parties on its merits before taking any action
• Recognize that unverified local screenshots and visual comparisons of biological tissue do not constitute sufficient grounds for content removal
• Direct the complainant to formal legal channels (DMCA or equivalent) if they wish to pursue content removal
• Preserve all records related to this Discussion for potential future legal proceedings

We remain committed to open science and the responsible sharing of research data. We welcome any legitimate inquiry conducted through proper and formal channels.

Sincerely,
The Dataset Authors

Response to the Claim of Independent Acquisition

The uploader states:
“The data contained in this dataset was independently acquired by our research team using our own imaging equipment and experimental setup.”
If that is the case, two categories of verifiable documentation must exist.

1. Animal Experiment Ethics and Regulatory Approval
   If the dataset involves in vivo mouse brain vasculature imaging, then the following must exist:
   • Official government-issued animal research license (where applicable)
   • Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics approval number
   • The name of the approving institution
   • The approved animal protocol documentation
   These are formal regulatory documents with government or institutional records and official seals. They are not informal materials and cannot be retroactively fabricated without institutional traceability.
   If the uploader has no institutional affiliation, then such approval cannot exist.
   If the uploader claims institutional affiliation, they must disclose:
   • The name of the institution
   • The laboratory name
   • The Principal Investigator
   • The ethics approval number
   We will directly contact the listed institution to verify the existence of the approval and protocol.

2. Imaging Equipment Procurement and System Documentation
   If the data were acquired using “our own imaging equipment,” then the following documentation must exist:
   • Imaging system model and manufacturer
   • Voice-coil scanning module specifications (if applicable)
   • Laser model and vendor
   • Photoacoustic transducer model
   • DAQ hardware model and sampling rate
   • Equipment purchase records
   • Procurement or tender documentation (if institutionally acquired)
   Institutional equipment purchases generate formal procurement records, vendor invoices, or tender documentation. These are traceable administrative records and cannot be fabricated without institutional accountability.

If the uploader fails to provide verifiable regulatory approvals and documented equipment procurement records, the claim of independent acquisition lacks evidentiary foundation, and there will be substantial grounds to question whether the dataset was lawfully generated or obtained.

Thank you for the clarification @chengliuyan

@solaneko , we invite you to report any content you believe infringes your copyright by submitting a DMCA takedown notice with detailed and accurate information supporting your claim to dmca@huggingface.co. This allows us to take the appropriate steps to prevent any potential infringement. 

Dear @no-mad , I submit the evidence to dmca@huggingface.co, please check.