I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
The problem lies in your comment on judges thinking it's OK as it's not nudity. It seems that you argue that (partial) nudity should be part of the equation - which if so, would make an upskirt totally legal if the victim would wear pantihose, in which case it's easy to argue there is no nudity at all.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written. They're not supposed to interpret the law, other than maybe at points where the law is unclear, in which case judges may reserve judgement on that exact ground, and ask the politicians to write the law properly.
And in the end this is what happened here, as within hours a new law was written. Now the speed at which that happened is worrisome to me, as it means there has not been proper discussion on the actual content of the law. It may have many unintended consequences, that are a result of not thinking it through properly, or it may have been used by some radical politician to advance his/her agenda.