In this question I asked whether someone who recovers an old, noncopyrighted work via technical processes can claim copyright on the result. The answer suggested that they could not, but that they might be able to enforce license restrictions anyway, simply as a condition of providing the content. Is this the case? Under what circumstances can someone restrict the use of intellectual property that they provide without having any claim to the intellectual property itself?
To re-use one of my examples from that question: suppose I possess the only copy in existence of a previously unknown short story by Mark Twain, and I've spent time and technical effort to recover the text (e.g., by physically piecing together and examining faded, worn-out papers) without adding any copyrightable creative work. It's clear that I can print the story up and sell copies of it. But can I impose license restrictions on the text itself? That is, can I give someone a copy of the story, but legally prohibit them from copying it themselves?
I don't own the story itself (because it's in the public domain), only my copy of the story. Does my ownership of the only copy in existence give me de facto copyright over the story, because no one will be able to obtain the noncopyrighted text except by getting it from me and thus accepting my license terms?
I'm interested primarily in US law on the matter, but would also be glad to know of noteworthy international variations in law.