However, the Supreme Court granted leave for Rowe to question whether he should have been convicted.
Rowe argued the photos alone could not amount to an indecent act, nor could taking photos of what may ordinarily be seen in public comprise an offence.
He also argued that his trial judge misdirected the jury as to what was required for him to have an intention to insult.
The Crown said an "indecent act" had to be seen as indecent by right-thinking members of the community.
It also said the "intent to insult" included the possibility that what was insulted was the complainants' rights to modesty or privacy.
The Supreme Court, however, unanimously allowed the appeal - and quashed the conviction.
It did not order a retrial because there was not enough evidence that the conduct in question could amount to the offence.
The Supreme Court judges found that the surrounding circumstances, such as motive or prurient purpose, could not elevate Rowe's acts, which were not intrinsically indecent, to acts which were an offence.
The judges also ruled it was not possible to prove Rowe intended to insult because the images he took were not indecent.
