Law doesn't say it has to be hidden or clandestine...the jury exists only to determine guilt based on the law.
Maybe you should read the actual law before pre-empting what the judge might say, it clearly includes the words "intent", "secrecy" and "privacy" in the following excerpt - "[Thou shall not photograph people's wobbly bits] with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed".
So the prosecutor needs a bit more than just the video, he has to demonstrate the defendant intended to film the victim's "private parts", was attempting to conceal his true intent, and that the victim had an expectation of privacy. A naked toddler running around on a public beach clearly does not have an expectation of privacy and it would be very difficult to demonstrate secrecy and intent in such a scenario (assuming the defence lawyer is not in a coma). Why the chief prosecutor would bring such a case before the judge will also be questioned by any judge who (in your own words) is just interested in what "the law states". OTOH making upskirt videos of strangers with a hidden camera in your shoe is now clearly illegal.
As a non-American the jury nullification thing doesn't apply to me, nor do I have to suffer elected judges who don't have a clue what they are doing. However the concept of jury nullification is interesting, a majority vote by a jury that the law is unjust should at least delay a verdict until the legislators have publically reviewed both the case and the law. With such a system (US*) public prosecutors may become less keen to use bogus charges as bargaining chips to score a "confession" on a less "scary" charge.
* - Google "prison population by nation".