Cost of Pay, because of excluded collection, should trump Overquota

[paperboyo]

Co-authored by Copilot 🙀🔫🤖.

What does this change?

We have a concept of Excluded Collections (based on source field) where images are Paid, even if their Supplier is Free. Currently, when such a Supplier runs over quota, users are unable to see those images as Paid, they can only see they are Overquota (Overquota badge instead of a £ one). Paid is a stronger signal (ie. should be leased less lightly) than Overquota, so they are asking for it to trump it.
This PR makes that change.

How should a reviewer test this change?

• Configure a Free supplier to run over quota
• Upload two images from this Supplier (or edit existing ones), so that one of them is from the Excluded Collection (currently, only Getty)
• notice how badges and Usage Rights notices in Viewer differ with this PR: a pound badge is clearly displayed for an image from an Excluded Collection

How can success be measured?

Hopefully, users will not lease Paid images as lightly as Overquota ones

Who should look at this?

Tested? Documented?

• locally by committer
• locally by Guardian reviewer
• on the Guardian's TEST environment
• relevant documentation added or amended (if needed)

[github-actions]

Deploy build 13089 to TEST

All deployment options

• Deploy build 13089 to TEST
• Deploy parts of build 13089 to TEST by previewing it first

---

From guardian/actions-riff-raff.

[paperboyo]

Sorry ChatNFT, but closing this in favour of your human overlords in #4420. If you would want my advice, learn how to say “I don’t know”. And see you next century.