Translation is a restricted act. I.e. doing it without permission infringes the copyright inherent in the original.
Although not explicitly stated, it appears that the translator is the author of the translation. Certainly a translated work does not qualify as being of joint authorship under the definition of the Act.
However, the restricted acts (acts which the copyright holder has the exclusive right to perform) can be performed directly or indirectly. I.e. copying the translation infringes on the copyright of the author of the original. Thus it appears that both the original author and the translator have rights with respect to the translation. This is a clear and well defined point - translation of a work creates an adaptation of the work. Ownership of the copyright in adaptations can be looked at as if by all of the authors severally, not jointly. In effect this means you need permission from all of the copyright owners to perform any restricted acts -- Mjb67
If the author of a work asserts his right to be identified as the author, he must be identified as the author of the original whenever the translation is published commercially (which includes putting it on the Web, regardless of whether you're making any money from it).
The author also has the right to prevent the subjection of his work to derogatory treatment. This means "any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work" other than translation if it "amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author". (Excerpts from CDPA 1998 are (C) Crown Copyright 1998). Presumably this means that it's got to be a faithful translation, although a good lawyer would probably have a go at arguing that translation cannot be treatment under the Act.
Any right may be waived by a written instrument signed by the person entitled to the right. This means that the email MoonShadow reproduced may not be sufficient. A waiver may be conditional or unconditional, and may be worded to allow later revocation. I don't think that you can waive the moral rights (right to demand identification as the author)--Mjb67 (PeterTaylor) 87.(2) says that any of the rights conferred by chap 4 (Moral Rights) "may be waived by instrument in writing signed by the person giving up the right.".
Sections (1) and (4) of [Paragraph 87] seem relevant. I submit I have enough evidence to prove informal consent, making 87(4) relevant. Can anyone find appropriate chunks of the "general law of contract" it refers to?
It's not my area of expertise, but I think a lot of contract law is common law and therefore is not set out anywhere you could find 'vast chunks' of it: it's contained in case law.
If you both intended to create a legal relation then that would create an informal contract. Of course, that only applies in English law, so... -- Senji (note, IANAL)
'Course this all depends on whether you think the original author is going to decide he doesn't like you after all...
(PeterTaylor) Hadn't noticed the word "informal" in (4). I did some research on contract law a few months back. The basic points are that a contract requires four things: offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations, and consideration. You certainly have the first three. Consideration means that both parties must be getting something from it, and I suspect that the only thing the original author is getting in your case is having his work translated; however, you could probably argue that this is consideration. If he really wants to back out, he might be able to argue that you're not benefitting, but that doesn't seem a likely route. So yes, you're probably okay.
It appears that the Russian Fed is now a signatory to the Berne Convention, and correspondingly covered by a Order which places works by Russian authors or first published in Russia under British copyright protection. See 
Russia may be a signatory to the Berne convention, however it does not obey the spirit of the Berne convention. Should I therefore respect Russian copyrights? (especially in light of the slightly publicised raceCAD case)--Gwyntar