Why is it OK for modern authors to write about King Arthur?

[thisgirlrocksursox]

Lots of modern writers have published their take on the King Arthur legends, and it is considered OK. The same authors couldn't, for instance, write about Harry Potter because of copyrights. So what's the deal-are there no copyrights on Arthur or is it because he's a traditional folktale?

[pamela k]

King Arthur is a legend, Harry Potter was made up by JK Rowling so she owns the rights

[MSB]

Copyright laws don't last forever. I believe it's somewhere between 50 or 75 years after the author's death, or something like that-- I used to know this but I forgot.

For example, Gregory McGuire, who wrote "Wicked" (based on the Wizard of Oz characters) had to wait a certain amount of time for the copyright on the characters to expire before he could publish his books.

There is also a sequel to Phantom of the Opera that the author waited for the copyright to run out on.

I expect in 100 years or so, if people are still interested in Harry Potter and the Wizarding world JK Rowling created, they will be writing about them again, free from copyright infringement.

The copyright is to protect your work from being used by others, but there are certain figures in legends and mythology that no one holds the copyright on because they are so old or no one knows their origins.