Incorrect answer. The institution could be seen to be negligent and to be authorising infringement. The institution should not be seen to limit or control what the lecturer is using, but should obviously be concerned to avoid the infringement of copyright.

Correct answer. The institution should be concerned. While adding these assets to the lecture prior to putting it onto the VLE may make the lecture more attractive, does it make it more ‘fit for purpose’? Consider which is better; a podcast lecture that can be used consistently to deliver learning outcomes or a more attractive recording that has to be withdrawn because of a copyright dispute.

The lecturer is acting in the course of employment so, as employer, the institution could be liable for any copyright infringement carried out by its employees. A particularly high risk of liability arises if the employer should have put in place training or support materials making employees (particularly those engaged in productions of this kind) aware of copyright and the importance of respecting copyright, but fails to do this.

Note : If you have not read any of the other answer(s), it would be a good idea(recommended) to do so when you have more time as the other answers provide more information and will help build up or extend your overall copyright knowledge.