Naw, parody is just an example of fair use. You can absolutely make money off of fair use (see: reviews), but you have to add enough to the product to have it considered your own work-- It's a grey area, though, and I think the courts would just go in favor of the copywriter holder in the case of anything involving porn.
Anyways, I really wouldn't mind seeing a game like this, with well-done fakes, but that's certainly not this.
you know your right reviews can make a profit off of what they use
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research can all be valid free use exceptions to copyright if they are unlikely to negatively effect the value of that copyright. parody is actually not covered under free use though most parodys do get ruled a form of critique so it is easy for the line to be blurred but parody in and of itself is not free use. even a single direct reference can sometimes get a parody into trouble with the copyright system.
furthermore many free and profitless uses can still violate copyright and not be free use.
at least in the US this is a good source
You must be registered to see the links
in this case though Rowling might have a fairly week case. in order to maintain a copyright one has to aggressively defend it at least in american courts. her own words about Fanfic and parody in the past could be used to argue that she has surrendered such aspects of her own copyright to the public. under such a circumstance an argument could be made that thus in certain conditions harry potter functions more under a collective commons use much like king Arthur or robin-hood are. though I am uncertian if she even holds the american copyright. It may fall to the book publishing house or movie producers here. depends of the deals that they made as she is not american.