TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — A federal judge has ruled that artist Daniel Moore did not violate trademark laws by painting scenes of some of the most famous plays in University of Alabama football history without licensing the work through the university.

Moore's paintings include one showing the goal-line stand to defeat Penn State in the 1979 Sugar Bowl.

Moore said yesterday that the ruling meant he could now concentrate on his paintings, including his latest work which depicts Alabama defensive lineman Terrence Cody blocking a field goal at the end of the Crimson Tide's Oct. 24 win over the University of Tennessee.

"The 800-pound gorilla in my studio has been this lawsuit and it's taken up thousands of hours when I could have been painting," Moore said.

The university sued Moore in 2005, alleging that he painted scenes of Crimson Tide football games without permission and reissued licensed prints without paying royalties.

Moore denied violating trademark laws and claimed his art is speech protected by the First Amendment and fair use.

U.S. District Judge Robert Propst, in a Nov. 2 opinion, rejected the university's argument that Moore's paintings violated trademark law by showing Alabama players in their crimson and white uniforms.

"This court concludes that the depiction of the uniforms in the paintings is incidental to the purpose and expression of the paintings," Propst, a University of Alabama graduate, wrote in University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc. He said the purpose of the paintings was to "artistically depict and preserve notable football plays in the history of University of Alabama football."

Debbie Lane, a spokeswoman for the university, said the school would likely appeal the ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We appreciate the work of Judge Propst in dealing with these complicated issues. We agree with portions of his opinion, but respectfully disagree with others," Lane said. "As Judge Propst has stated repeatedly, these issues will ultimately be decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. We will continue to do our best to protect the property rights of the University of Alabama."

Moore's attorney, Steve Heninger of Birmingham, says he believes the ruling in favor of Moore is "extremely significant."

"It says that as long as his work is artistically relevant it's protected by the First Amendment," Heninger said.

He said he hoped the university would change its mind and wouldn't appeal.

"One hopes it will stop here. The university has spent an awful lot of money fighting Daniel Moore," Heninger said.