Final answer:
The photographer could be sued for an invasion of privacy because the photograph was taken without consent on private property and could be deemed to appeal to prurient interest and not have any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Step-by-step explanation:
The photographer's actions might result in a lawsuit over an invasion of privacy. When a person is in their own home or on private property, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If a photograph is taken without consent and particularly in such a private and sensitive context, it could be deemed an invasion of that privacy. The first point to consider here is that the average person may find such a photograph, especially when taken without consent, to appeal to prurient interest, which is a legal threshold for determining obscenity.
Moreover, the photograph depicts the woman in an offensive manner relating to sexual conduct, even though she's within her private space. This situation could be weighed against contemporary community standards, which would likely consider this act as a violation of privacy, and hence, meets one of the criteria for what might be deemed unacceptable. Lastly, if the work, in this case, the photograph, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, it also contributes to the establishment of an invasive act. Therefore, the appropriate legal claim the woman could pursue is invasion of privacy.
Regarding point 13, the laws that restrict access to private property such as beaches limit the right to privacy. Lastly, the provided examples involving a woman being hung or a man swearing in the presence of a woman are not related to this scenario and thus are not applicable for the legal concern in question.