I don't think what you have constitutes a parody:
Parody
Fortunately for the student media, copyright law gives parodies and spoofs a fair share of breathing room. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that the use of copyrighted material in parodies or spoofs can constitute a fair use if the use satisfies certain conditions.33 First, the parody must be obvious.34 The audience must reasonably perceive that the use is a criticism or commentary of the original. A disclaimer or notice that clearly alerts readers of the parody may prove useful. Second, the use must reproduce no more of the work than the minimum necessary to conjure up the original in the audience's mind.35 For example, a slight change in the appearance of a cartoon character will be insufficient to satisfy fair use. Finally, the use must not destroy the market of the original work.36 If the public will buy the use instead of buying the original or a parody of the original created by the copyright owner, then the use is not fair. So, for example, an artist's rendition of an otherwise exact copy of Beavis and Butthead talking about rock videos that only altered their hair color or clothing would not qualify as a parody but a drawing of two teenage boys who vaguely resemble Beavis and Butthead giggling about school events probably would.
There is a difference between a SATIRE and a PARODY in Copyright Law.
____________________________________________________________
I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.
