“No, because he was participating in a normal consensual function.”
Oh. She gave her consent to have her crotch photographed?
No, she tacitly gave her permission to be photographed in a group. When you’re taking the group shot, you can’t even keep every face in line before the shot. It’s only afterwards when you can study the photo when you know if you have gotten everyone in the shot, and hopefully smiling. You may not even notice the part of the girl in question that is revealed until much later. There’s no implied evil intent on the photographer’s part.
If he instructs actions that would cause the exposure on purpose, you might be able to go after him, but only if it was flagrant. Another-words, “Hey ‘girl’, how about uncovering yourself for me.” That would be problematic.
How about the photographer that captures swim team shots, or water polo shots? Sometimes those can go a bit south. Is the photographer there to score, or to fulfill a service to the team?
Generally speaking, he’s there to fulfill a service for the team. As long as he conducts himself professionally, he would be deemed acting according to his mandate.
That’s not what took place here. This guy’s sole goal was to capture illicit shots.