This paper introduces a multi-label visual emotion analysis benchmark dataset for comprehensively evaluating the ability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to predict the emotions evoked by images. Recent user studies report an unintuitive finding: humans may prefer the predictions of MLLMs over the labels in existing datasets. We argue that this phenomenon stems from the suboptimal annotation scheme used in existing datasets, where each annotator is shown a single candidate emotion for each image and judges whether it is evoked or not. This approach is clearly limited because a single image can evoke multiple emotions with varying intensities. As a result, evaluations based on these datasets may underestimate the capabilities of MLLMs, yet an appropriate benchmark for evaluating such models remains lacking. To address this issue, we introduce a new multi-label benchmark dataset for visual emotion analysis toward MLLMs evaluation. We hire $20$ annotators per image and ask them to select all emotions they feel from an image. Then, we aggregate the votes across all annotators, providing a more reliable and representative dataset labeled with a distribution of emotions. The resulting dataset contains $10,344$ images with $236,998$ valid votes across eight emotions. Based on this benchmark dataset, we evaluate several recent models, including Qwen3-VL, OpenAI's GPT, Gemini, and Claude. We assess model performance on both dominant emotion prediction and emotion distribution prediction. Our results demonstrate the progress achieved by recent MLLMs while also indicating that substantial room for improvement remains. Furthermore, our experiments with LLM-as-a-judge show that the method does not consistently improve MLLMs' performance, indicating its limitations for the subjective task of visual emotion analysis.